3.26.2005
Good Judgment (WashingtonPost.com)
EDITORIAL
Saturday, March 26, 2005; Page A14
NEITHER CONGRESS nor President Bush acquitted themselves well last weekend in enacting a law to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo. But in the days that have followed, one institution of American government has distinguished itself in its handling of the matter: the federal courts.
The new law put the courts in an impossible position. It gave the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida jurisdiction to hear any federal claims brought by Mrs. Schiavo's parents, and it instructed that it do so without deference to the previous state court adjudication. It thereby sent an unmistakable message that the legislature wanted the federal courts to order Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted and her life prolonged. But if Congress dumped Mrs. Schiavo's tragedy into federal court, it did not change the substantive law that governs it there. And there is no serious question under federal law concerning the state court's determination that Mrs. Shiavo was entitled to refuse artificial life support and would not have chosen to live in a "persistent vegetative state." In short, Congress leaned on the courts to consider a case that had little merit and to take a step within that case that the law would not support easily. To their credit, up and down the appellate ladder, the courts refused.
(More ... Good Judgment (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 20:54
Saturday, March 26, 2005; Page A14
NEITHER CONGRESS nor President Bush acquitted themselves well last weekend in enacting a law to intervene in the case of Terri Schiavo. But in the days that have followed, one institution of American government has distinguished itself in its handling of the matter: the federal courts.
The new law put the courts in an impossible position. It gave the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida jurisdiction to hear any federal claims brought by Mrs. Schiavo's parents, and it instructed that it do so without deference to the previous state court adjudication. It thereby sent an unmistakable message that the legislature wanted the federal courts to order Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted and her life prolonged. But if Congress dumped Mrs. Schiavo's tragedy into federal court, it did not change the substantive law that governs it there. And there is no serious question under federal law concerning the state court's determination that Mrs. Shiavo was entitled to refuse artificial life support and would not have chosen to live in a "persistent vegetative state." In short, Congress leaned on the courts to consider a case that had little merit and to take a step within that case that the law would not support easily. To their credit, up and down the appellate ladder, the courts refused.
(More ... Good Judgment (washingtonpost.com)) ¶ 20:54
