While I applaud Sir George's wonderful missive and the appreciate the sentiments therein, I have to point out our own hypocrisy in this sad state of affairs, thusly:
"If our facts are in error our heart is not, and it is the heart of a man that is judged, not his depth of accumulation of trivia and legalisms."
This is what we decry of the liberals. Their wish to be judged, not on their actions, not on thier results, but merely on the intentions of their "pure, pure hearts". < / sneer quotes, off >
And it's bullshit, plain and simple.
Terry will die a soldier in the cause of righteousness, just as our honored fallen have given that last, true measure of devotion in Iraq.
And we should mourn her as such, with all honors due a fallen hero.
I am quite in agreement with the outcry of we who side with life, and I'm quite in agreement that we ought petition and demand every truly Constitutional recourse in order to preserve her life.
It's called being a strict construtionist, and is but what we ask of Conservative appointees to the bench. No matter how painful, we can but demand the same of ourselves.
Her erstwhile husband is a cretian of the lowest order, and ought be investigated fully for suspicion of assault, and soon, of homicide.
While it appears Mr. Shiavo may succeed in the slaughter of his wife, it is more important that a Super-Constitutional precedent not be set by the fervor of those seeking to save her life.
And I'm certainly one of those who believes her life is worth the saving. But not at the cost of the precedent, my friends.
I think Steve H. is absolutely correct:
"Conservatives complain that Roe v. Wade and federal firearms laws are unconstitutional intrusions on states' rights. Do we really want the feds to be able to decide how the states will treat the disabled? They already do it to an alarming extent. Perhaps you've heard of the ADA.
The next time we complain about creeping centralization, liberals will rightly remind us of the Schiavo battle. What will we say? Centralization is okay when it suits us?
I believe Terri Schiavo deserves every possible chance. I think it's insane to starve her to death when board-certified neurologists are telling us her capacity for consciousness can only be determined by tests Michael Schiavo refuses to permit. But the harsh reality is that state courts have the power to starve her. State law may not be on her side. Even if it is, and even if the courts have screwed up, it may be that the system has functioned as intended, and that there is nothing more to be done.
State court decisions cause people great harm all the time. Sometimes it's justified, and sometimes it isn't. We live with it, even when the result is the execution of an innocent defendant or the impoverishment of a party which has done no wrong.
Sometimes there is no satisfactory legal answer to a problem.
As for me, instead of calling the judges inept and screaming for appeals and reversals which may or may not be legally sound, I will just keep Terri Schiavo in my prayers. There is one authority that never mishandles an appeal, and it's starting to look like He's the only one we can turn to." (emphasis mine)
Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's.
Sometimes, there is NO JUSTICE IN THE LAW. But now, I believe we're better refering our appeals to the Highest Judge of all.
And accordingly, my prayers are with Terri and her family.
Finally, thank you Sir George for the sheer beauty of your sentiment. I only wish I could have agreed with it more. But I just can't cross that bridge into the doctrine of feelings and intentions.
That said, I mean you no slight, dishonor nor disprespect.
It's time to hold Mr. Schiavo accountable though. Fully and completely accountable.
And that's a whole new ballgame.