From the NY Times – A Blow to the Rule of Law

That should have settled the matter. But supporters of Ms. Schiavo’s parents, particularly members of the religious right, leaned heavily on Congress and the White House to step in. They did so yesterday with the new law, which gives “any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo” standing to sue in federal court to keep her alive.

This narrow focus is offensive. The founders believed in a nation in which, as Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, we would “submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules.” There is no place in such a system for a special law creating rights for only one family. The White House insists that the law will not be a precedent. But that means that the right to bring such claims in federal court is reserved for people with enough political pull to get a law passed that names them in the text.

The Bush administration and the current Congressional leadership like to wax eloquent about states’ rights. But they dropped those principles in their rush to stampede over the Florida courts and Legislature. The new law doesn’t miss a chance to trample on the state’s autonomy and dignity. There are a variety of technical legal doctrines the federal courts use to show deference to state courts, like “abstention” and “exhaustion of remedies.” The new law decrees that in Ms. Schiavo’s case, these well-established doctrines simply will not apply.

From the Washington Times – Sustaining life

Indeed, it’s disturbing that a system of laws affords more protection to death-row inmates than an innocent and disabled woman. Without knowing as fact what Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes were, it was right for Congress to intervene.

We usually do not favor the federal government pre-emptively intruding into a civil issue of the states. But in light of the many distortions and ambiguities of fact presented in the Schiavo case, substance must trump procedure. After signing the bill early yesterday morning, Mr. Bush succinctly expressed this point of view: “In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life.” We agree.

It was an act of pure hypocrisy for certain Democrats who voted against the Schiavo bill to cite federalism in their defense. Liberals are only too willing to let federal courts decide for the country on matters they deem protected by the Constitution, like abortion and same-sex “marriage.” Yet in a case where it appears that Mrs. Schiavo’s 14th Amendment right to due process is violated, they shamelessly wave the flag of “states’ rights.”

And the judge rules quickly – Judge Rejects Schiavo Appeal

U.S. District Judge James Whittemore (search) said the 41-year-old woman’s parents had not established a “substantial likelihood of success” at trial on the merits of their arguments.

This story continues to ignite great passion. The comments that this story engenders seem (to this observer) much more heartfelt than for most issues that I discuss. If we believe in the rule of law then the process should no longer be challenged. But we all argue against the law when we feel strongly about the result. For we all focus more on results than on process.

I have previously ranted about the hypocrisy of the states’ right argument. Each side (here I assume that most issues have two sides – often Republican and Democrat) invokes states’ rights when they find it convenient.

I have remained reasonably consistent about states’ rights. I would like to see states have the right to allow gay marriage, medical marijuana, different rules for Medicaid, etc. This unfortunate patient has given some in the Congress to grandstand politically.

This post will likely incite some comments telling me what an idiot I am – that I do not really understand all the issues in this patient’s story. Please refrain from such ad hominem attacks. I have made my position clear. I respect those who disagree with me – and I only ask that they respect my position. The courts have, in my opinion, consistently reviewed this patient’s care and agreed with her husband’s position. I see no evidence of bias here. Therefore, I must agree with the courts.

Related posts:

1. My daily Schiavo post
2. Schiavo – more from Bioethics
3. States’s rights and marijuana
4. More on the Oregon case
5. How to save money in health care

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.