Via the NYT: Congress Ready to Approve Bill in Schiavo Case
Congressional leaders reached a compromise Saturday on legislation to force the case of Terri Schiavo into federal court, an extraordinary intervention intended to prolong the life of the brain-damaged woman whose condition has reignited a painful national debate over when medical treatment should be withdrawn.Top lawmakers in both the House and the Senate said they hoped to pass the compromise bill as early as Sunday. They said it would allow Ms. Schiavo’s parents to ask a federal judge to restore her feeding tube on the ground that their daughter’s constitutional rights were being violated by the withholding of nutrition needed to keep her alive.
Regardless of the issue of what the right move regarding Mrs. Schiavo is, the insertion of the Congress of the United States into this affair bothers me for several reasons.
1) It violates long-standing principles of federalism: these types of issues are not part pf the delegated nor implied powers, and have been the reserved domain of the states up and until this point. And yes, I understand that the Congress has the Constitutional power to set the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but it should be used to deal with federal issues, not state ones.
2) Laws should be passed with a mind to their general applicability, not tailored to deal with one specific citizen. That simply is not the domain of the Congress.
3) Along those sames lines, it is the domain of the courts to determine the specific applicability of the law to a given case–again, this smacks of Congress overstepping its boundaries.
4) In terms of setting jurisdictions this is simply the majority using its powers to give yet another bite at the apple in a case in which they do not like the outcome. This strikes me as an abuse of power.
5) The sad part about all of this is that based on what I have read and heard, the odds are quite good that the courts will ultimately rule for Mr. Schiavo and the tube will be removed. As such, this action simply prolongs this ordeal and will almost certainly result in the tube being replaced temporarily before being removed yet again.
6) I sure would like to see Congress act with this kind of fervor and alacrity on issues that actually impact the nation as a whole.
Let me makes clear for the record: that which has gotten me to comment on this case has far more been the politics of it than the specifics of Mrs. Schiavo. I find the entire situation gut-wrenching, and will confess that I am not certain as to right thing to do, as I feel that I (and this is true of the general public as well) do not have all the facts necessary to make a determination as to the proper course of action. Let’s be honest: there are no good outcomes here, for either the woman starves to death, or she is left rendered, for all practical purposes, nothing more than a shell (literaly) of a person. I am not convinced that she can improve, and if she does improve I am skeptical as to what “improvement” actually means. Further, it seems worth noting that the very decision to insert the feeding tube in the first place was an intervention into the natural course of events, so I find at least some of the talk of “playing God” to be a tad disingenuous.
(And to get metephysical for a moment: speaking of the religious, another element that I cannot fully reconcile in my own mind is that if one holds and Christian worldview on this topic, it strikes me that it is cruel to keep Mrs. Schiavo alive under these conditions, given that she is being withheld from eternity for a prolonged period to no apparent gain. As such, allowing her to pass on could arguably be the most merciful act in that context.)
This has become an ideological debate in the press between those who believe that all life is worthy of protection no matter what, and those who believe in the right to die in some circumstanaces. The ideological element of the debate is quite clear in the desire by many to assume that the experts who support whichever view one holds are the right experts, and the experts who contradict one’s position are cast as shills and hacks. Further, the desire by many to demonize Michael Schiavo (and I will admit, there are some issues in that area that make me uncomfortable, to put it mildly) has also been telling.
As I have noted, my own personal feelings are that I would not want to be kept alive in such a state, and that taints my view of the situation.
Update: James Joyner has more, including numerous links.
No that I disagree regarding the federalism issues, but doesn’t congress often act on behalf of individuals?
I seem to remember many cases where budget acts were amended to the benefit of a specific constituant.
Comment by Matt — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 8:09 am
There are bills that are often oriented towards individuals–usually symbolic in nature.
In regards to the budget issue: I am not familiar with waht you describe.
In this case we have the Congress going to extraordinary lengths to deal with a singular individual, which is not normal in any sense.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 8:23 am
I am stunned, to say the least, the Congress has got itself wrapped up in this case. I certainly would have never predicted it.
And it does seem a bit ironic that those who are most ready to protect Ms. Schiavo’s rights, to give her a legal voice, are the ones who seem least concerned about the rights of those the U.S. has been holding in Guantanamo without even letting them know what the charges against them are.
Comment by Eric — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 8:29 am
I disagree that this intervention is for the benefit of only one person. What happens to Terri Schiavo will set a precedent for the future disposition of all persons who have a questionable quality of life.
I doubt that anyone who has expressed a wish to die rather than continue to live with an undesirable quality of life would explicitly request to die in a cruel and protracted manner.
Comment by Teri — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 8:41 am
There are approximately 30,000 Americans in a Persistent Vegetative State at any given time. Every week hundreds make the decision that Michael Schiavo made in 1998 — to disconnect the feeding tubes.
Why did this one become the one we should watch? Why not the 85 year old that descends to a similar position? Or the 12 year old victim of a swimming accident. It’s because there’s conflict within the family. I guess our TV society makes us all voyeurs where there’s conflict so we feel we can reach into the innermost struggles of a family. Survivor without cooking rats.
Very old saying — Hard cases make bad law. This case is pretty hard, but most families have seen one nearly as bad. Intervention from Washington in such a case on one side instead of another is very scary.
Maybe we can all vote with our cellphones on the outcome. Live tallies by the end of the hour. If the vote goes one way she dies. The other way she gets a recording contract.
Or maybe it should be left within a family to make a heart rending decision, and a local family to sort out the disagreements.
Comment by Buckland — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 1:43 pm
Last sentence above … “and a local family court to sort out the disagreementsl”
I hate it when I step on my punchline.
Comment by Buckland — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 1:45 pm
Too quick to click!
And I think you sum up the situation quite well.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 2:24 pm
Well, most likely, this bill will be mostly symbolic, as well.
I’m just amused that, all of the sudden, many people in government and throughout the (lefty) blogosphere are REALLY concerned about states rights. (Not talking about you, Dr. Taylor)
Call me a caveman, but I don’t see the difference between this and many other cases in which the federal government (whatever the branch) has stepped in where they were not wanted. Both to good (civil rights) and ill (ummm…. civil rights circa Dred Scott)
Let’s face it, Federal governmant activism from the nationalization of poverty to the nationalization of reproductive rights has led us to the place where a situation like this can even exist.
Tell me you can’t think of an instance where something spectacularly bad happened to someone (usually a child) and someone in the federal government decided we needed a law to cover the situation, beyond what the states already had in place.
Comment by Matt — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 4:36 pm
Schiavo
The discussion in the blogosphere. Professor Ribstein at Ideoblog. James Wolcott on Schiavo and more is here. Poliblog with a good post here. Peggy Noonan opines here. Matt Yglesias is here. A good sample. Take a look.
Trackback by CommonSenseDesk — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 5:45 pm
I’m not sure the argument that this has been traditionally left up to the states is such a good one, particularly given the argument that this is a constitutional issue of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Comment by bryan — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 7:16 pm
Of course, that’s the Declaration…
:)
Comment by Steven Taylor — Sunday, March 20, 2024 @ 8:19 pm
What’s the difference between this and when judges legislate from the bench?
Comment by LASunsett — Monday, March 21, 2024 @ 11:48 am
If you are asking me, I would state that there is a great similarlity. However, I don’t want judges legislating from the bench. Now, instead of saying that since judges often do the wrong thing it is okay for Congress to do so, I prefer to be consistent and say that Congress oughtn’t behave this way.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Monday, March 21, 2024 @ 11:51 am
I have no idea how to use TrackBack, but I linked to your post here.
Comment by Alabamian — Monday, March 21, 2024 @ 7:28 pm