The dean of America's bloggers, Hugh Hewitt weighs in ,in the Weekly Standard article, on the courts' behavior in the Terry Schiavo case:
...people do need to focus on an unintended consequence of the weekend legislation: the illumination--again--of the contempt of the federal courts for their coordinate branches, and the contempt of the left for people of faith.
It was concern over Michael Schiavo's status of guardian that drove the congressional intervention, a concern primarily based on the jarring recognition that he has a girlfriend by whom he has had two children. Most people view that fact and conclude that his judgment may no longer be the judgment of a "husband" in the way that the law anticipated a "husband." Majority leader Tom DeLay bluntly leveled an assessment of Michael Schiavo that seems shared among those who have studied the case in detail:
Well I've got to tell you, I don't have a whole lot of respect for a man that has treated this woman in this way. He has refused to allow her to have therapy. He has refused to even let her have an MRI. For the last five years, five years, she's been kept in a hospice and every time they've asked just to take her outside, which they can do, he has refused. She's not been outside, I think, for the last three years. . . . I think his abuse and neglect of
his position as guardian is outrageous. And, and, . . . and partnered with this judge that has allowed him to treat Terry like this for the last eleven years is outrageous. And my question is, what kind of man is he? [link]
So Congress passed a statute that was intended to force a new trial on the merits of Terri's parents' concern that their daughter's wishes were not being honored. The president signed it. DeLay summarized the intent of Congress in his Sunday press conference: "We are confident this compromise will restore nutrition and hydration to Mrs. Schiavo as long as that appeal endures. . . . Obviously, the judge will have to put the feeding tube back in or she could die before the case is heard." [link]
The courts refused to obey Congress's instructions for a new discovery in the Schiavo case. They also refused to order an injuction for the removal of the feeding tube until the end of the discovery. This is a big contrast with the courts' behavior in the cases involving endangered species. Hugh Hewitt continues:
In the case of the Endangered Species Act, the courts have built the standard of review from the statute's breadth and Congressional intent. I cannot think of a more clear-cut expression of Congressional intent and urgency than the extraordinary intervention of last weekend and the clear pronouncements of many legislators on the matter of Terri Schiavo. They assumed the federal district court would stay Terri's starvation pending the outcome of the de novo proceeding they had mandated, even as convicted murderers have their executions stayed as federal courts process their appeals from state proceedings.
Thus the courts, in the case of species conflicts, have built a standard governing the issuance of stays that was not on the face of the statute, but have refused to enforce the standard that was clearly intended in the case of Terri Schiavo. [link]
And Hugh Hewitt concludes:
Whenever the collective attention of the country turns to one drama, all sorts of unexpected revelations occur. In this case, we see confirmed two longstanding assumptions of the center-right: Courts will often wrongly defy Congress and the president; and a large section of the left has nothing but contempt for people of faith. [link]
posted by: jrtelegraph
Comments