A Government of Laws?

From S.686 (“For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo”):

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

From Bush v. Gore:

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances…

When government crafts narrow decisions and laws solely to benefit certain people, is it really holding true to the ideal of the rule of law, and not of men humans?

4 Responses to “A Government of Laws?”

  1. jw Says:

    This is the way God wants it. Who are you to stand up to the will of God. And Bush. And his fat cat corporate backers. And the children of the future (as long as they are rich). And Jesus. Don’t forget Jesus. He cares even if you don’t.

  2. Dennis Says:

    Oh come on, everyone. Yes the one person legislation is silly, but you can’t tell me that the courts haven’t totally screwed this one up, too. I’m against the legislative branch stomping on my common law citizen rights, but I’m also against the judicial branch stomping on my constitutional ones.

    They’re both guilty on this one, and you aren’t being complete if you can’t see that. In the meantime, remind me not to suffer an accident in Florida, either at the polls or at the hands of my spouse.

  3. jsp Says:

    I have to disagree with you there — I certainly can say the courts haven’t totally screwed up. All the sturm und drang around this case had obscured the fact that it’s really quite straightforward: Mr. Schiavo is Terri’s legal guardian, and therefore empowered to make decisions on her behalf when she’s incapacitated, barring a written instrument that says otherwise.

    This is the precise reason why we have courts. I understand Mr. & Mrs. Schindler’s grief, just as I understand they are desperately jurisdiction shopping, trying out every possible justification they can find. Accordingly, something like 15 judges have all found the same thing: the husband is the closest relative and the most likely to know her wishes, as well as the legal guardian.

    So go ahead, go to Florida. Just draw up a medical power of attorney first (a living will is insufficient; better to designate a real person) and you’ll be fine.

  4. Dennis Says:

    The fact that it now requires more than a living will and probably more than medical power of attorney just to be afforded the constitutional right to life doesn’t strike you as a bit overarching, invasive and dangerous?

    Also, as the spouse of an attorney and former federal clerk to a chief district judge, I’m a bit too familiar with this case and the judicial system in general. There is one judge in the case…the “like 15” did not rule on the facts and made no statements of finding. Judge Green is the only one who addressed the arguments, and is the only ones with findings.

    The others simply determined that the case didn’t warrant an extraordinary examination. They washed their hands of it, but did not make any findings of fact, or even examine the evidence. They ruled on procedure.

    And this isn’t the reason we have courts…to starve the innocent. For goodness sakes, John Wayne Gacy had more protections than this poor woman did.

    I’m not a political whackjob, really. I just think that it is incomplete to blame one branch of the government for what, at best, constitutes a minor, limited and unique (and wholly ineffective) infraction, when another branch is authorizing the extermination of our disabled countrymen.

    Doctors used to “first, do no harm.” Too bad the judge, jury and executioner didn’t follow the same process. And I’m sort of surprised that you are so one-sided about it. Most of your other posts are opinionated, good-natured, and spirited (and I agree with the majority), but not polemical. I’d say this one falls into the latter category.

    Just my two cents. Not that you need charity from a troll! : )

Hit Me With It