Update II (3/25): The Schindler’s second appeal to Judge Whittemore fails. They appealed again to the 11th Circuit. The court will likely turn them away a second time.
————————————————————————————————–
Liberals’ newfound respect for “federalism” is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word “federalism.”
I wholeheartedly agree, Ann.
During the Federal Marriage Amendment debate, liberals were suddenly supporter’s of “states’ rights.” Strangely enough, they couldn’t be bothered with it when the Supreme Court struck down a sodomy law in Texas. Or when the same court discovered a right to privacy to kill babies, despite state laws to the contrary. It seems that liberals favor states’ rights as long as death is involved. Except the deaths of convicted murderers, that is.
When the people of California approved Proposition 209, outlawing skin color discrimination in public admissions and hiring, liberals wanted a judge to strike it down. When the people of Arizona approved Proposition 200, a law that requires “proof of citizenship to register to vote, photo ID to vote, and proof of eligibility for non-federally mandated public benefits (welfare),” liberals wanted that law stricken, too. Do you see a pattern here?
When it comes to the protection of life, decency, fairness and American values in general, liberals dismiss the will of the people, preferring judge-made law. But when death, destruction, and indecency are in play, suddenly the will of the people is paramount. I got a kick out of reading the rambling posts of liberal bloggers pontificating about “the rule of law.” It was hysterical.
Meanwhile, Terri Schiavo starves. It’s been a week since her feeding tube was removed.
Captain Ed responds to a reader about Judge Greer. Lorie Byrd blogs in the wee hours. Also be sure to check out Wittenberg Gate. Gerry Phelps argues that providing food and water is not “artificial life support.” Wizbang says the case is over.
[M]illions of Blue State Baby Boomers are in line to inherit a bundle … but not if Mom or Dad lives forever or, especially, if his or her slowly declining health requires a fortune in expensive care. A nice quick fatal heart attack would do the trick, but with Lipitor and the like these days, oldsters are going slower.So, when you wonder why a lot of people, especially Democrats, are okay with starving Terri Schiavo to death instead of having her kept expensively alive, follow the money.
Update (11:08 a.m.): Supreme Court tells Schindlers to get lost. Governor Jeb Bush files for custody of Terri Schiavo. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)
I do not understand the emotionalism of the pull-the-tube people. What is driving their engagement? Is it because they are compassionate, and their hearts bleed at the thought that Mrs. Schiavo suffers? But throughout this case no one has testified that she is in persistent pain, as those with terminal cancer are.If they care so much about her pain, why are they unconcerned at the suffering caused her by the denial of food and water? And why do those who argue for Mrs. Schiavo’s death employ language and imagery that is so violent and aggressive? The chairman of the Democratic National Committee calls Republicans “brain dead.” Michael Schiavo, the husband, calls House Majority Leader Tom DeLay “a slithering snake.”
Everyone who has written in defense of Mrs. Schiavo’s right to live has received e-mail blasts full of attacks that appear to have been dictated by the unstable and typed by the unhinged. On Democratic Underground they crowed about having “kicked the sh– out of the fascists.” On Tuesday James Carville’s face was swept with a sneer so convulsive you could see his gums as he damned the Republicans trying to help Mrs. Schiavo. It would have seemed demonic if he weren’t a buffoon.
Why are they so committed to this woman’s death?
They seem to have fallen half in love with death.
Hugh Hewitt: “Congress is allowed to ‘intervene and guide or control the exercise of the courts’ discretion’ — except when it comes to Terri Schiavo.”
Bryan Preston: “We don’t err on the side of protecting anyone. We don’t protect the unborn. We don’t protect the nearly born and we’re edging closer to the edge of not protecting the recently born. Now we don’t protect those born 41 years ago, if they have suffered enough that a couple of doctors and a judge think her life is no longer worth living.”
Blogger Dan Edelen noticed something strange about Sojourners, a liberal Christian magazine. They are supposedly “concerned with the social gospel, peace and justice issue for those who have no voice,” Dan said. Guess what they had to say about Terri Schiavo?
Yet, with all of my moral outrage on this, I have to stop and ask myself if I am viewing this situation, and Michael in particular through a gospel-centered lens, or through a cross-centered lens?Viewing Michael through a cross-centered lens won’t change the sinfulness of his actions. Viewing Michael through a cross-centered lens won’t change our obligation to rescue those being led away to slaughter. Viewing Michael through a cross-centered lens won’t change our obligation to voice our opposition to the laws that make the starvation of a person like Terri possible.
But we are also faced with how we are to respond to Michael as a person. Put more precisely, how does the gospel guide our response to Michael as a person? If all should go his way, how should the Christian community react to him in the future?
From funny man Scott Ott:
Judge Greer suspended the Florida constitution and issued a declaration of ‘judicial law’ for the good of the people. His edict moves the official seat of government to his Pinnellas County courtroom….The coup comes during a month in which Judge Greer twice overruled the governor and state legislature in order to carry out his decree to slowly execute Terri Schiavo, a woman who has come to symbolize the oppressive reign of Christian conservatives.
CBS undercuts its own reporting on Terri Schiavo.
Watch the big bloggers (Hugh Hewitt, John Hinderaker and Glenn Reynolds) duke it out on “Kudlow and Company.”
Update: Since George Bush is such a friend to lawbreakers, he should become one himself and save Terri Schiavo’s life despite whatever edicts have been handed down. But he won’t. Terri will die, and he and Vicente Fox will drink a toast to their amnesty plan.
I’m listening to Michael Savage, who says (paraphrased): You mean to tell me that a swamp judge in Florida (Judge Greer, Schiavo trial judge) is more powerful than the most powerful man in the world (G. Bush)? Or the United States Congress? And his brother Jeb Bush can send in the state troopers right now if he wanted to.
