Deja vu
Posted on 03/24/2005 10:36:06 PM PST by cinnathepoet
THANK GOD FOR OUR JUDGES. (Oops! Sorry. No offense, your honors. I didn't mean to write "God." Or at least I didn't mean anything specific or exclusionary or sectarian or unconstitutional by writing "God." It's just an expression I occasionally use. It does go way back in U.S. history. I hope it's okay.)
Anyway. Thank God for our robed masters. If it weren't for them, Christopher Simmons might soon be executed. In September 1993, seven months shy of his 18th birthday, Simmons decided it would be interesting to kill someone. He told his buddies they could get away with it because they were still minors. He broke into the house of Shirley Crook in Jefferson County, Missouri, bound her hands and feet, drove her to a bridge, covered her face with tape, and threw her into the Meramec River, where she drowned. He confessed to the crime, and was sentenced to death according to the laws of Missouri.
Last month the Supreme Court saved Simmons's life. The citizens, legislators, and governor of Missouri (and those of 19 other states) had, it turned out, fallen grievously and unconstitutionally behind "the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society." Five justices decided that the Constitution prevented anyone under the age of 18 from being sentenced to death. So Christopher Simmons will live.
It appears, at this writing, that Terri Schiavo will not. In a series of decisions in Florida state courts, Circuit Judge George Greer and his colleagues have chosen to credit the claim of Michael Schiavo that his wife long ago expressed a well-considered wish to be killed if she found herself in a disabled state. Of course, there is no reason to believe she ever seriously considered she might find herself in such a state. They have chosen to deny efforts by Terri Schiavo's mother and father to assume responsibility for their daughter's care. They have chosen to strike down legislation passed by the Florida legislature, and signed by the governor, to permit the governor to allow water and nutrition to be given to patients who leave no written directive, and to allow some recourse for family members who wish to challenge the withholding of nutrition and hydration.
Last week, federal judges chose to dismiss, out of hand, extraordinary legislation passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the president, which asked the federal courts to take a fresh look at the case. The federal judges chose not to explain why "evolving standards of decency" might not allow Terri Schiavo to be kept alive until the case was argued in federal court. The judges assumed nothing new or meaningful would be learned from such an argument, or that the federal legislation might be found unconstitutional. The federal judges chose not to bother to explain why either might be the case.
So our judges deserve some criticism. But we should not be too harsh. For example, it would be wrong to suggest, as some conservatives have, that our judicial elite is systematically biased against "life." After all, they have saved the life of Christopher Simmons. It would be wrong to argue, as some critics have, that our judges systematically give too much weight to the husband's wishes in situations like Terri Schiavo's. After all, our judges have for three decades given husbands (or fathers) no standing at all to participate in the decision whether to kill their unborn children. It would be wrong to claim that our judges don't take seriously legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people. After all, our judges are committed to upholding the "rule of law"--though not, perhaps, the rule of actual laws passed by actual lawmakers. And it would be wrong to accuse our judges of being heartless. After all, Judges Carnes and Hull of the 11th U.S. Circuit told us, "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children."
So do we all. They deserve a judiciary that is respectful of democratic self-government and committed to a genuine constitutionalism. The Bush administration should nominate such judges, and Congress should confirm them. And the president and Congress should lead a serious national debate on the distinction between judicial independence and judicial arrogance, and on the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy. After all, we are a "maturing society," as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution.
All I've seen of him on the Terri case have been surprisingly the same as I felt. This article is being very sarcastic. Same as Rush was today - went on and on about all the animals that are being saved, the prisoners who have been pardoned. I got his point.
But where's Gandalf? Where are Frodo and Sam?
Where are the heroes?
little jeremiah wrote: "You want on my pinglist?"
Please. Thanks.
Deja vu
I just don't understand why they are so avid about killing Terri. Rush mentioned the same and felt possibly Bush hatred.
Very scary flags about what is out there.
Thanks. Yes I heard Rush as well, this is why this sounded like a stick at Rush. But I now understand that is was not intended to be at Rush.
Yes, he is being sarcastic -- it's a very good read. Three cheers for Kristol and let's all join "Terri's Rebellion."
Gotcha. It's capricious - whatever interests me in the field of moral absolutes, and sometimes I'm very busy so I don't get to it for a while. Also, I lost the list of names twice since I'm a techno dunce.
It's a broad field, and I don't cover the homosexual agenda (I do a separate pinglist with another freeper for that) or abortion issues, as there are one or two other pinglists dedicated to that issue.
I think Rush is dumbfounded too. He seemed furious today. After a while he just started on all the other cases where the liberals have taken such extreme effort, all the trees, the endangered animals, the beached whales. And he did it without comment reporting on them as very very important. No mention that they were allowing a woman to be murdered and we are watching. But, it was very apparent he was recounting all the times they freed a criminal, etc.
Thanks for the link. Interesting to read about the early years of her incapacity. Also some new slants on life/death issues.
"Weekly Standard" really does an excellent job.
I am starting to consider, whether this republic might be better served, were it to be reduced to two branches of government. Perhaps the entire judicial branch should be dismantled and reduced to its constitutional minimums.
A man can be wrong on some things and right on others.
"A man can be wrong on some things and right on others."
I do not disagree.
What scared me was the total unawareness of the sanctity of life. I assumed most Americans felt as I do that we do not kill. After all, we send murderers to prison after months of legal haggling. We all understand allowing to naturally die or withholding extreme treatment, but to willfully go in there and pull the feeding tube and deny fluids of a woman not dying is crossing a line for me.
But, found out a huge number of Americans have thrown out or do not even comprehend the sanctity of life. They just judge others and, if they rationalize that they would not want to live that way, then that person is free to end that life. This is the result of accepting abortion IMO.
When us SOL people see this ending of life intentionally we react strongly and seek all means to prevent it as this is a major issue to us as it will color every decision in the future. The federal government got involved and now those conservatives who do not necessarily react as strongly to government ending a life but resent like ???? bringing the federal government into it, fight for their view.
We did not realize that there were some things conservatives and some liberals feel the same about - the sanctity of life.
Where to go from here?
We are beset on all sides because many do not want the restraints on their wishes required when you respect that a fetus is a life, that embryonic cells represent a life, that those in a pitiful state represent a life.
Somehow when we see the death culture moving up its agenda, when we see abortion moving its guideposts, when we see the liberal agenda attempting to destroy America as we know it we have to do something.
What is that "something". The only option we have is to get our federal government to stop it - how else do you prevent the massive destruction of the moral fiber of this country?
Or, do these other conservatives not care about what these agendas do to us as long as the federal government stays extremely small or moves in that direction.
I just don't understand how we can make government go backwards to an earlier time. Usually everything progresses forward and would become smaller only if other ways of operating proved more effective to get objectives done.
Agree with most of your post, but for this sentence. I've followed these threads for days; most of the naysayers are moderates; pro choice; or libertarian atheists. True conservatives (even those for smaller government) are definitely on your side.
Don't you think it's actually kind of refreshing to see who your REAL allies are? Frankly, I've only been surprised by the opinions of two posters (on the positive side); the rest simply confirmed my suspicions.
Yes it is and very surprising. Sure a shock though that some just do not care that a person is being put to death - they treat it in such a cavalier method.
Lebanon?
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.