Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Born-again Federalists

Suddenly, the left wing of the Democratic Party is yammering about "states' rights". We on the political Right are supposed to feel ashamed for wanting to protect Terri Schiavo's rights, denied by the court system. Those on the Left are so damned dumb they don't even recognize a signature civil rights case when they see it. The truth is, they neither understood nor cared about civil rights in the first place.

Amazingly, they argue that neither Federal courts nor Congress have the right to intervene in a matter of state jurisdiction. Terry's constitutional civil rights are not of concern, only the power of a single Florida judge to personally decide this matter.

They have rewritten history so often, they have forgotten their own sordid past. Once upon a time, many states restricted-- entirely on the basis of race-- their citizens' access to public facilities, most notably public education. Race laws were a core part of the "states' rights" concept. But then, the federal courts, along with the Eisenhower administration, famously intervened. Who were the stalwarts of the racist status-quo of the time? The Democratic Party.

If the Democrats had their way then, we would still have racial segregation today. If the left wing of the Democratic Party has its way today, we will have court-ordered euthanasia tomorrow. Oh, wait! We have it today. Terry is Patient Zero.

The reaction of the Left in the Terry Schiavo matter is very revealing. The Left has a natural distrust of democracy and democratic institutions. Hence, their reliance on free-wheeling judges to impose their "popular" will, bolstered by an army of trial lawyers. Anyone ever notice the financial and political connections between lawyers and Democrats?

For example, if judges had to actually follow laws passed by elected legislatures, we would not have universal abortion on demand today.

The Democrats want us to believe that there is popular support for abortion rights. If that is the case, why not put it to a vote? Because they might lose, and thereby undermine their own base of power in two respects. One, they would lose ground on the abortion issue itself. Two, they would be giving legitimacy to democracy and rule of law. And they cannot let that happen.

Their vision is not "a nation of laws, not men", rather a nation of lawyers. The Terry Schiavo case has nothing to do with Terry's "right to die", rather the Left's desire to wield power by any means possible. For today, that would be a runaway judiciary.

There is no greater issue today than the reassertion of the will of the people through our electoral process to overcome our activist judges. Forget Social Security reform. The judiciary fight-- that is the battle of our time.

UPDATE: Apparently, Ann Coulter agrees.

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Shoot the dog

With all the hand-wringing over "due process" for Terry Schiavo, and the sudden, stunning obsession by Leftists with "states' rights", I can't help but feel particularly thirsty today. All I seem to think about is a cool glass of water. I wonder if Terry is feeling something similar.

Sure, she has the right to die. So did my dog Spooky some years ago, but we could not stand to see him suffer so we took him to the vet and had him put down. Of course, we can't do that to Terry, because that would be murder. When you take a lethal action against a person, with the intent they die, that is murder. Injecting Terry Schiavo with a lethal dose of sedative would be murder.

So, instead we cut off all food and water... with the specific intent that she die.

I'm not sure how much difference the technique employed makes when we consider murder charges against someone. I think a knife, gun, garrotte or club would all be about equal as murder weapons.

But to starve someone to death? I think that qualifies as torture.

We hear the Left talk on about how merciful it is to "pull the plug". A laudable sentiment in a hopeless case where someone is being kept alive through extraordinary measures. We have all seen television movies where a patient is unconscious, on a respirator. The "plug" is pulled, and they die quietly and quickly. Peacefully.

But Terry is not being kept alive by anything other than food, water and ordinary nursing care. No plug to pull.

Imagine the outcry, had I simply left poor Spooky to die of thirst and starvation. We would describe such behaviour is "inhumane". But in Terry's case, she is not even entitled to food and water. Not even a few chips of ice to alleviate suffering. Not only is she not entitled to extraordinary means to keep her alive, but we take extraordinary measures to specifically deny her even basic sustenance. Why not just shove a pillow over her face and deny her air as well?

Extraordinary, indeed.

Subscribe with Bloglines Who Links Here Blogarama - The Blog Directory