Posted on 06/19/2005 8:19:40 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Just when it seemed that every liberal commentator on the Terri Schiavo case was starting to sound like Barney Frank, the great Joan Didion published a long and remarkable article on the case in the quite far left New York Review of Books of June 9. Frank, of course, took the occasion of last week's Schiavo autopsy results as yet another opportunity to denounce Republicans as "this fanatical party willing to impose its own views on people."
For those of you still somehow unaware, "imposing their views" is a semiofficial Democratic meme or code phrase meaning "religious people who vote their moral views and disagree with us." Didion, on the other hand, cut through all the rhetoric about imposing views and said the struggle to spare Schiavo's life was "essentially a civil rights intervention." This is a phrase of great clarity, particularly since Democrats have a long track record of protecting civil rights and Republicans don't. Behind the grotesque media circus, the two parties were essentially switching roles. In the first round of public opinion--the polls--the GOP took a beating. But in the long run, the American people tend to rally behind civil rights, and the party that fights to uphold them is likely to prevail.
On the "rational" or "secular" side of the dispute, Didion wrote, there was "very little acknowledgment that there could be large numbers of people, not all of whom could be categorized as 'fundamentalists' or 'evangelicals,' who were genuinely troubled by the ramifications of viewing a life as inadequate and so deciding to end it." Amen. There was also little admission that this was a "merciful euthanasia" controversy posing as a "right to die" case. Many of us understood, as the autopsy has now shown, that Schiavo was severely damaged, but a national psychodrama built around the alleged need to end a life without clear consent is likely to induce anxieties in all but the most dedicated right-to-die adherents.
"The ethical argument" Didion did not conclude that ending Schiavo's life was a wrongful act, but she seemed to be leaning that way. She wrote: "What might have seemed a central argument in this case--the ethical argument, the argument about whether, when it comes to life and death, any of us can justifiably claim the ability or the right to judge the value of any other being's life--remained largely unexpressed, mentioned, when at all, only to be dismissed."
That issue was slurred and muffled by the media and by shrewd, though completely misleading, right-to-die arguments that distracted us from the core issue of consent. George Felos, the attorney of Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, told Larry King, "Quality of life is one of those tricky things because it's a very personal and individual decision. I don't think any of us have the right to make a judgment about quality of life for another."
Here Felos piously got away with adopting a deadly argument against his own position by presenting it as somehow bolstering his case. This can happen only when the media are totally incurious or already committed to your side. Michael Schiavo made a somewhat similar eye-popping argument to King: "I think that every person in this country should be scared. The government is going to trample all over your private and personal matters. It's outrageous that these people that we elect are not letting you have your civil liberties to choose what you want when you die." Americans were indeed scared that they might one day be in Terri Schiavo's predicament.
But Michael was speaking as though Terri Schiavo's wishes in the matter were clear and Republicans were determined to trample them anyway. Yet her wishes, as Didion says, were "essentially unconfirmable" and based on bits of hearsay reported by people whose interests were not obviously her own--Michael Schiavo and two of his relatives.
One hearsay comment--"no tubes for me" --came while Terri Schiavo was watching television. "Imagine it," Didion wrote. "You are in your early 20s. You are watching a movie, say on Lifetime, in which someone has a feeding tube. You pick up the empty chip bowl. 'No tubes for me,' you say as you get up to fill it. What are the chances you have given this even a passing thought?" According to studies cited last year in the Hastings Center Report, Didion reminds us, almost a third of written directives, after periods as short as two years, no longer reflect the wishes of those who made them. And here nothing was written down at all.
The autopsy confirms the extraordinary damage to Schiavo and discredits those who tried to depict the husband as a wife-beater. But the autopsy has nothing to say about the core moral issue: Do people with profound disabilities no longer have a right to live? That issue is still on the table.
Well, that was what the Constitution said. Don't blame the courts for refusing to engage in judicial activism in the Dred Scott case.
He and his family could have been dehydrated or starved to death if Irene Emerson wanted them to. And that would have been perfectly fine. Is that what you're saying?
You're so fond of State laws, you tell me what his home state said about starving slaves at the time.
Or maybe you'd like to start comparing apples to apples, rather than oranges?
Here is a quote from Justice Scalia, from a previous post,
"Justice Scalia has admonished us to rely upon and accept the role of state lawmakers and laws to address issues of this very nature. ",
so are you saying that Justice Scalia was wrong or did not mean what he said?
The system works just fine. You just don't like the decision it came to.
The system worked just fine up till the point the Florida Supreme Court decided to act as the Florida Legislature, - then it broke down.
We elect our Judges here in Fl.
Greer won re-election with nearly 70% of the vote in Pinellas county against Govan...who ran against him based on his handling of the Schiavo case. I guess the people who live here and know the most about the case thought he handled it correctly.
The proper solution to that would have been for the Florida legislature to impeach the judges, if they felt that their decision was an unconstitutional power grab.
They didn't do that, so it looks like you're out of luck.
You know that isn't true. Nobody was force feeding Terri. The majority of Americans are not in favor of forced euthanasia, so we were not put off by attempts to save Terri from being murdered. But keep throwing out false statistics if you like. I don't think you're fooling anyone.
Greer owes him bigtime.
I have little respect for Randall Terry and I certainly don't let him lead me in any way. It was the "extreme religious right" that fought to end slavery. I guess you can blame the entire War Between the States/Civil War on us too (that is if you believe that slavery was the sole cause of that conflict).
The last GOP President to carry as low an approval rating as Bush does now was Richard Nixon at the height of Watergate. That stupid night flight from Crawford to Washington to sign a Bill that was Un-Constitutional and clearly an over-reach of Federal power into a State family Law matter smacked of utter hypocrisy, especially in light of the law G.W. Bush signed in Texas allowing feeding tubes removed from futile patients even if the family does not want them to be removed.
You're right - we should only fight to protect human life if it is makes us more popular or if the polling numbers are just right. And we should never learn from our mistakes or change an opinion based upon new information.
A "personal choice" - kind of like suicide, assisted suicide, slavery in the early 1800's and abortion.
Don't bother addressing me.
I do not care to engage in any sort of dialog with you at all on any subject. IMO you are a young, churlish little mind that can't debate with any reason or principal. In other words the perfect representative for the "force feed Terri forever" crowd.
I was shocked that apparently a lot of people think that her blindness was another good reason to kill Terri. It is very sad that the kill-Terri crowd are ranting and raving about Michael Schiavo being owed an apology. It is just the most amazing thing. It's an end times alert.
May the Good Lord bless the Schindler's and give them peace.
Waiting for Fuhrman's book to come out.
Where did that come from? Would you like me to find you some tin foil?
Your response makes it obvious that you would have stood idly by or even supported Irene Emerson if she had decided to dehydrate or starve Dred Scott, his wife, and his children to death. I mean, the laws said it was OK so it must be OK.
You seem to be forgetting that the laws and the Constitution were enacted for a higher purpose than just providing order and controlling people. This country, the Constitution, and the laws do not exist just to exist. There was a purpose upon which our course was set by the Founding Fathers. If that purpose is forgotten and the laws are twisted to serve another, then the Republic is lost and therewith freedom.
Supreme Court judges? Regarding the reelection of Greer, I will say this. People are led by the media - and I know for a fact that the St. Pete Times has always been very pro Michael for many many years. For all the years that he lived with Jodi - they never even mentioned it till very recently. So I am not surprised by the public - unfortunately the media is on your side and a lot of the population follows what the media tells them.
LOL...These kind of statements are the reason for my tagline url.
Face a retention vote.
So, robertpaulsen isn't the only one with a "list". Now KDD weighs in with his own "young, churlish little mind that can't debate with any reason or principal. In other words the perfect representative for the 'force feed Terri forever' crowd" list. ROFL
KDD has refused to address the issue of the alleged 2/3 of Americans being alienated. He/she had a psychotic episode demanding that I not address him/her. Would you try to find out the source of the claim that 2/3 of Americans were alienated by Terri's supporters, and the source of the claim her supporters ranted hysterically, and lied? I concede we made accusations, and I stand by most of those accusations. I just don't like it when people tell lies and refuse to discuss their claims on an adult level, or any level for that matter.
My point is:
(1) In the Dred Scott case, the courts refused to engage in judicial activism to strike down a law that they did not like. You criticize them for that.
(2) In the Schiavo case, you attack the Florida Supreme Court for striking down a law that they did not like and accuse them of judicial activism.
So, which is it, do you want activist courts or courts that follow the law, no matter what their personal feelings might be?
Cognitive dissonance?
I want life, liberty, and the benefits of the fruits of one's own labor to be protected. I want the core unit of our civilization, the family, to be preserved. I want good to triumph over evil. I want right to prevail and wrong to fail. Period.
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.