While I can understand that there were many who believed that Terri Schiavo should have kept alive no matter what. However, I still don’t understand one aspect of this situation and that is the insistence by those who believe that Terri should have been kept alive that the current situation constitutes judicial activism/tyranny. As best I can tell, the law of the state of Florida was followed, as was federal law (although I know some think that the law passed by Congress wasn’t followed, yet I think a plain reading of that law demonstrates that it was).

If the central figure in this judicial drama, Judge Greer, the Florida judge (a Republican and Southern Baptist, btw, according to published accounts), followed Florida law as written, and if the appeals courts in Florida followed the law, how is that judicial activism?

Judicial activism means the courts stepping outside the bounds of the law to essentially legislate from the bench (i.e., making stuff up). Roe v. Wade is a good example of judicial activism, wherein the Court utilized an unwritten constiutional right to privacy to discover (it was hidden in penumbras and such) a constitution right to abortion. Not only is this clearly “making stuff up” it had the effect of taking the power to regulate the topic in question by the democratically elected representatives of the people in the state legislatures (as well as in Congress) except in fairly narrow ways.

If the law says that the husband is the guardian and that in the absence of written instruction that a hearing is held to determine the wishes of a person unable to communicate those wishes, where is the judicial tyranny if the court simply did what the law required?

One can dislike the outcome. One can dislike the law. One can dislike Michael Schiavo. One cannot, however, argue judicial activism in this case. In this case judicial activism would have been re-inserting the tube.

It is as if many have decided that “judicial activism” = “I didn’t get want I wanted from the courts.” Hence, if the court creates a right to abortion, that is “judicial activism” and if they don’t re-insert the tube, that is “judicial activism”–never mind that in the latter case, the law was clearly followed, what seems to matter to many is simply the idea of getting what one wants out of the system.

If one doesn’t like the way this played out, work to change the laws in your state about persons in PVS or similar circumstances.

Indeed, if one is anti-abortion one wants for abortion what currently exists in regards to this situaiton: the ability to lobby legislature to regulate the topic as public policy rather than simply as the realm of bench.

You have now for regulating the role of families in this type of situation what you do not have in the realm of abortion. Consider that before you cry “judicial tyranny.” Examine the situation, not just what you wanted the outcome to be.

At a minimum: at least argue what you want to argue, i.e, that life is paramount over all and forget this business about judicial tyranny.

(Update: Part of today’s Beltway Traffic Jam)