Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 21 Comments
This post is in: Politics
If you can tolerate just one more opinion on the Schiavo case, then make it this one, which I found via the Samizdata:
The constant appeals by the parents to various courts result in the same response again and again: that it is not within the jurisdiction of the court system to circumvent the legal authority of Terri
Comments are closed.
Consistency in the Courts
The constant appeals by the parents to various courts result in the same response again and again: that it is not within the jurisdiction of the court system to circumvent the legal authority of Terri’s husband as her guardian.
Tom
it is big government expressly NOT interfering in the life and death of an individual citizen. (In this case, ironically, it is conservatives that WANT government interference, evidenced by their current emotional appeals to Florida governor Jeb Bush.)
Now, maybe I’m crazy, but I fail to see the irony. This is the de facto conservative position. It’s always conservatives that I hear preaching that it is better to refer to authority than your own judgement, epescially on moral/ethical matters. When it comes to anything related to civil liberties or peoples personal lives, it’s always conservatives that want more government interference, and liberals that want less. Abortion, birth control, the drug war, gays, anything else in your bedroom, PATRIOT act, euthenasia, etc. conservatives consistently line up on the side of more government control (though the situation is obviously reversed when it comes to government control of businesses). The one exception I can think of is gun control, which is a position that a lot of liberals are departing from as of late (e.g. the NRA endorsed Howard Dean several times).
So, I’m skeptical that anyone who is informed would express any sort of genuine surprise at anything that’s happened in the Schiavo case, espescially with respect to the behavior of conservatives.
I’ve heard it suggested that the parties have switched places in many respects, and I suppose that may be true – I’m pretty young, it must have happened before I got into politics. But this has been the state of affairs in the GOP for a while now – maybe some people are just now noticing for the first time. I do wonder why libertarians continue to vote for them.
wild bird
The same bunch of liberal left-wing news media who are blasting conservatives including mrs schiavos parents are the same ones who support gun control and whine about drilling in the ANWR what a bunch of worthless no good journalists no wonder i dont watch the news its too damn onesided and too left-wing SQUAWK
Kevin K.
Regarding wild bird’s comment, I’m reminded of Alec Baldwin’s great quote from State and Main:
“Well, that happened.”
Mr Furious
So what’s your problem with Krugman’s column, specifically? I understand you having a problem with Krugman in general (just as I usually enjoy and agree with him), but do you really think his conclusion is that far off?
Michael Schiavo and the judge are already under armed protection, one of these fanatics has already had designs on obtaining a gun and rescuing Schiavo by any means necessary…
We’re a mere forty years since our last assassination (of a Pres), not counting other attempts (Reagan) and who knows how many thwarted plots.
This fire has been stoked to a level where an outcome of violence and martyrdom almost seem a more logical conclusion than everyone just fading into the woodwork and going back to work the day after she dies. We’re talking zealots on a level not too far from the extremists we are battling around the globe. Hopefully I’m wrong.
I know, I know. It was Krugman, and he’s so damn shrill…
Sav
“We’re talking zealots on a level not too far from the extremists we are battling around the globe.”
It’s absolutely shocking you can’t figure out what’s wrong with Krugman’s column.
scs2005
I disagree with the absolute authority of the spouse as guardian. Part of your posting has an excerpt basically stating your spouse is your guardian now and forever, like it or lump it, period.
Well parents are also guardians too. Yet their guardianship is often reviewed in many circumstances. In divorce, the courts review the parental situation, choosing one parent over another as the best guardian. Parents who are shown to be neglectful have some or all of their guardianship priviedges removed. Parents can not refuse most medical treatment for their children. In other words, even parental rights, one of the most sacred bonds in the law, are not absolute under the law.
Why then should Terri’s guardian have the ultimate power over her, no matter what, for as long as she lives? There has to be more nuance in the law.
dhw
re:Krugman…
“We’re talking zealots on a level not too far from the extremists we are battling around the globe.”
It’s absolutely shocking you can’t figure out what’s wrong with Krugman’s column.
–Say
The only substantive differences are (1) our extremists haven’t killed anyone in a few years (remember the abortion clinic bombings of a couple decades ago) and (2) our extremists aren’t NEARLY as well organized as, say, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (or whoever).
However, to think that our extremists are incapable of becoming violent, to think that our extremists aren’t right at the tipping point because of the way the media has played this, or to think that our extremists won’t get organized REAL QUICK if they decide to wage a REAL ‘culture war’ is sheer foolishness. They’ve demostrated their willingness to kill in the past, they’ve demonstrated their willingness to push things today (cf. the guy who offered the $250k bounty for Micheal Schiavo), and organizational skills are possessed by all of us.
Krugman implies that our extremists are as bad as the ones we are fighting abroad, and this is wrong. As Jefferson said, we shouldn’t convict someone based on what they might do, but based on what they have done. HOWEVER, this doesn’t change the fact that we would be IDIOTS not to watch these people VERY carefully. Actually, looking again at the Krugman quote above, “…zealots on a level not too far from the extremists…” Maybe he’s EXACTLY RIGHT.
–dhw
CadillaqJaq
scs2005 disagrees with the absolute authority of the spouse as the guardian. It’s my undestanding that that’s the law in Florida currently. If you don’t agree and are a Florida resident, petition the Florida legislature to amend the law.
scs2005 makes some good points in favor of parents being guardians, but in this case, Terri Schindler-Schiavo is not a minor and parental rights and legal responsibility became moot with her reaching adulthood and choosing a spouse.
As far as placing more “nuance” in the law, forget it: imagine the can of worms that would open.
CJ
Thank you Jaq.
scs2005: If you would like to have your parents control your life until your life or their lives end, there are ways to make this happen. Simply give them a durable health care power of attorney. You can also let them choose your clothing, what you will eat, who your friends/spouse will be. Sounds great, doesn’t it?
The desire of parents to control their children’s lives is understandable, but even more problematic. Parents that can’t let their children control their own lives are the type of parents that have children with bulimia.
Can you appreciate the problems that might arise from that? Any little bells ringing for you? There ought to be.
CJ
caleb
We haven’t seen nothin yet.
This whole affair is going to explode once the autopsy is done.
There is no possibility that any result from this autopsy will satisfy the extremists.
There is some advice from beyond the grave……Dr. Barnett Slepian warns: Judge Greer, Michael…..watch your back…..oh..and stay away from kitchen windows.
scs2005
To ya’ll. I’m not a Florida resident so I can’t change the law there. And I’m too lazy to change laws anyway. However, I still stand by my point.
When I think of guys like my ex-boyfriends having the power to pull my plug if I were in that situation, I shudder. I couldn’t even trust them to call me when they said they would, I certainly wouldn’t trust them with the plug.
And I know lots of married people who also don’t feel so warm and fuzzy towards their spouses either. I mean did any of you ever go into the chat rooms? Don’t you know how many unhappy cheating married people are in there?
Call me a mommy’s girl, but my parents have never let me down. I repeat, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is murder by their husbands. Not murder by their parents.
I’m not saying it should be the parents in all cases. Just give parents the right to make a claim. We decide the same thing in custody battles, why not here?
James
wild bird: Thankfully, you can always cozy up to the friendly confines of FoxNews and Powerline. That way you’re assured of never encountering that pesky liberal press, and further assured that your opinions will never be challenged. W. style.
scs2005: Shudder no more. The law grants no legal guardianship to boyfriends or girlfriends. Your obviously poor judgement with respect to men has no bearing on other rational individuals’ choice of spouse, and if you “couldn’t even trust them to call”, perhaps you ought not marry them. I really don’t mean to be nasty, but your post is entirely irrelevant to the legal concerns at issue here. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, and if you don’t trust your spouse, do as another commenter has suggested: grant your parents durable medical power of attorney. The law is fine.
CJ
SCS2005:
All I can say is that someday you might want to try adulthood. Its really not that scary to be responsible for yourself.
CJ
scs2005
James, I get that the law doesn’t grant boyfriend/girlfriend rights, thank goodness (unless you’re common-law maybe) and thanks, I will take your advice and not marry those guys. I was just using my personal knowledge to illustrate my frame of reference.
But the larger point you’re missing here, James, is its not all about me. Its about my view on the state of marriage and the way so many people insist on idealizing it. Let’s all wake up people. This is not Leave it to Beaver.
Take a look at any marriage study. This is not just my personal opinion. 50% get divorced, and of the 50% of marriages remaining, only half of those say they are considered happy. So 25% of marriages are considered good marriages. According to studies, about 50%-80% of spouses cheat. Women are most likely abused hurt or killed by their husbands, etc. etc. These are the people who are supposed to have ultimate power over you?
Yes you can make a living will and grant the power to your parents on your own. The problem is many don’t get around to making a living will. Also many spouses are in the dark about the intentions or behaviors of their spouse. Lacy Peterson anyone?
The 25% of the married couples out there who are happy have their rights respected in the law. I’m just worried about the other 75% out there and think they should be protected too.
In fact, I think I should turn your argument around. I think the law should be, if you are so darn happy and secure in your marriage, then you should take a moment and run on down and make a living will giving rights to your spouse. Otherwise, in my opinion, the law should not assume otherwise and grant the rights automatically to your spouse. Just because you get married doesn’t mean you become property.
scs2005
By the way, one more point. This is not just about parents, you know. This could be about anyone close to the victim.
This could be say, an adult son or daughter who knew Dad was emotionally abusive to Mom, or is having an affair, and want some rights towards Mom. I think it would only be fair to grant them rights.
Ok, I’ve purged, but I’m going to shut up on this subject now cause I’m starting to sound like a broken record. Sorry everyone.
CJ
SCS:
Strap on a spine would you? If you cannot take care of yourself, please move back in with your parents or check into a hospital or something. If you are lucky, a neice or nephew will take you in when your parents pass on (hopefully without you having put them through hell on artificial life support for 15-20 years).
CJ
James
scs: with the admittedly distressing divorce rate duly noted, I’ll refer you to my comments above.
Randolph Fritz
It seems to me that you and Krugman are largely in agreement on this issue. So I don’t understand what you find in his article that is “over the top”. I just checked three of his stated facts: that Judge Greer needs bodyguards, that a close associate of Randall Terry murdered a doctor, and that there is a growing number of pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives; all can be verified in reliable mainstream press sources (in one case he even gives the source.) He then argues that further attacks on the judiciary are likely; since this is a stated goal of the religious right I can’t see how this is implausible.
Krugman’s facts are correct, so far as I can tell. His conclusions match yours. He makes one prediction: that the Republicans in the Senate will further their attack on the Judiciary by attacking the filibusters; since this is a stated goal of some Republicans it’s plausible. I don’t see where you have a substantial disagreement with Krugman in this matter. What am I missing?
John Cole
I think comparing our religious extremists to mullahs and other death merchants around the globe could be considered ‘over the top.’
On many of the other points, though, I tend to agree- but I would bet that I am talking about a much smaller portion ofthe population than Krugman is. When Krugman thinks loony right, he probably thinks everyone to the right of Gore. I think everyone in the Randall Terry, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson nexxus of evil.
Randolph Fritz
Have you read some of our extremists? The influential Chalcedon Foundation is as far over the top as any Wahabbi. I tend to apply the duck test to religious extremists; if it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and it shoots like a duck, I figure it’s a duck, even if it quacks in English.
I would hardly call someone over the top for what he didn’t write. Your remark also poses the interesting question of where you place Al Gore on the political spectrum.
Have you noticed the attacks on the judiciary coming from congress, post-Schiavo, by the way?