"Alex, I'd Like Double Standards For $2000, Please"

Quoting from an April 16, 2005, Reuters news article about government crisis in Ecuador:

" The United States and the United Nations both expressed concern about government interference with the courts . . .".

The specific intereference that concerned the U. S. was President Lucio Gutierrez dismissing the Ecuadoran Supreme Court. This follows a previous December dismissal of the Supreme Court by their Congress.

Apparently, it is only acceptable for the Executive and Legislative branches of the United States government to run roughshod and dictate terms of conduct to the Judicial branch. Similar actions in other nations constitute a breach of the democratic process.

Hmmm . . . what's good for the goose is once again none of the gander's damn business.

Fare Thee Well, Terri Schiavo

(Warning – Long Post)

It was with a sense of relief that I learned Terri Schiavo had finally succumbed to the absence of nourishment and hydration at 9:05 Am on March 31, 2005.

I was among that group of people unfairly painted as “eager to see her dead”. Unfair, because the charge presupposes the objective was the championing of murder over survival, the disposal of the week and unfit for the benefit of the firm. With all respect to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and an overwhelming portion of the Republican members of Congress, you don’t know me, you don’t speak for me, and while in most instances I am squarely in your corner in this case you were simply wrong.

For me, the Terri Schiavo matter had nothing to do with the right to die, a culture of death, or a preference for euthanasia whether elected or enforced. This case was a simple matter of the fair an impartial application of law.

Much has been made of the Article III constitutional authority invested in Congress to ordain and establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2 states:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty
and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a
State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different
States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States,
Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court
shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Despite the fondest wishes of elected officials, Terri Schiavo is not any of the defined parties above, and in no case was the state of Florida or any other state a party in the suit being brought. Therefore, Congress had no authority to create “Exceptions” or define “Regulations” for conduct.

Indeed, in no case does Congress have the authority to tell a court how it must act or what conclusions must be reached. For that, any person compelled to engage the legal system as an interested participant has cause to be thankful.

There have been endless cries that Terri Schiavo was denied due process, that somehow nearly a decade of court actions appealed to Federal benches and upheld, appealed to the Supreme Court and rejected, were somehow the result of a vast judicial conspiracy to aid and abet Michael Schiavo in the murder of his wife. The simple truth is that the system was employed in the manner of its design and the finding was that the case of Michael Schiavo prevailed over the case of the Schindlers. That finding does not determine which side was morally or emotionally superior or correct. The court decisions merely apply the law as it exists and as the judges judge it applies to this particular set of circumstances and findings of fact.

If the only criteria for determining whether a ruling is “just” or “fair” was the emotional reaction and deep seated desires of the participants and observers, then their have been no fair, just, or proper rulings in the history of this or any other judicial system, or certainly very few. How many convicted of criminal activities wanted that outcome? By the standard that Terri Schiavo’s supporters want applied to her case, all convictions are wrong and a violation of the convict’s due process, with the only proper redress being endless retrials until the convicted one is found not guilty. But what, then, of the hopes, beliefs and desires of the prosecution in such cases? Fortunately, not liking a result does not define that result as being wrong.

In a final analysis, because there are many unrelated avenues to be explored as the result of the life and ultimate death of Terri Schiavo, perhaps the most positive result of this situation will be the repair of bad law and the creation of good law where none exists. The desire of Congress to preserve a human life was not wrong. What was wrong was attempting to use the full power of the United States government to bear on behalf of a single individual. That government is, or at least in theory should be, of the people, by the people, and for the people is accepted by most. “The People”, though, is not a specific individual but is rather comprised of individuals. Good law is law that preserves the interests of the body politic by ensuring the interests of each member of that body without unduly compromising the rights of other individuals.

The weak, the helpless, those who cannot speak for themselves, need to have a powerful voice working on their behalf to preserve their interests. A body of law, probably at the state rather than federal level but unified in intent if not in detail should probably evolve as a result of this case. It is not possible to know the mind of an individual who is incapable of communication. It is appropriate for such members of society to be protected by society, by “the government”. To err, if you will, on the side of life since erring on the side of death is always irrevocable. Perhaps Terri Schiavo will become the driving force to create laws that state the preservation of life is a sacred duty of one human being for all others, that except in cases where explicit instructions to the contrary have been left in advance by the individual, caregivers will be charged with the presumption that all patients want all available measures expended to hold the onset of death at bay for as long as possible. Then, the courts will not be compelled to rule in favor of death as the existing body of law required in this case.

Good bye, Terri Schiavo, and God bless. I truly am sorry your final road was such a challenging one and am relieved that for you at least the journey is over. May you have finally found the peace you so sorely deserve. May the burdens you have borne also prove to be the catalyst that lightens those same burdens for others.

Then both extremes, and more importantly you, Terri, will have “won” what small victory is possible to be taken away from this debacle.