Monday, March 21, 2005

Who Invited You?

Am I the only one that thinks Congress should butt out of the Terry Schiavo case? Let's go to the Big Board:

Reasons Why Congress Should Have Butted Out
1) It's none of their damn business
2) It really should be up to Mrs. Schiavo's family (meaning her husband first, then her parents... but since her parents are acting like 2 year olds, running to everyone they can and crying "It's not fair, he keeps winning!," mostly just her husband)
3) Last time I checked, the Florida courts have already ruled on this issue (TWICE!)... but we all know the respect the Bush Administration has for the Florida courts1 (the Florida executive he likes, the courts? Not so much.)
4) Congress has no constitutional power to give jurisdiction to a federal court over Terry Schiavo's feeding tube (unless they try to claim that the food she would be eating traveled in interstate commerce... good ol' Commerce Clause)
5) Did I mention it is none of their fucking business?!

Reasons Why It Was OK Congress Meddled
1) Come on, look at all the press this is getting. You can't expect them not to posture during a political battle, can you?
2) They need to show the Red States that they are serious about this "All God - No Thought" policy they've been promising
3) Tom DeLay must appear on T.V. approximately every 30 seconds or he will die of severe underexposure.

By my book, that's 5 real reasons against (yes, I am counting Congress minding it's business twice), and 3 fake reasons for. Hmm. Tough Call.

1If you can remember the ancient history of 2000, it was the Florida Supreme Court that ruled the recount should continue before the Nine Robes said "Stop! The Right Man Might Win!"

2 Comments:

At 12:44 AM, Anonymous Kathryn said...

Don't you think that since

1) If Terri Schiavo really felt that strongly about not living in a disabled state she would have had a living will.
2) Michael Schiavo can't be counted on to have his wife's best interests at heart considering he's living with another woman and has fathered two children with her.

that, as President Bush said, the presumption should be in favor of life?

 
At 1:00 PM, Blogger Unreasonable Man said...

Kathryn,

Thanks for your input. Here are my answers:
1) Yes, if she felt that strongly about it she probably should have gotten a living will. But, a) apparently under Floriday Law you don't need one, and b) she was only 26 when she collapsed. Very few people in their 20s think about getting a living will, and even fewer actually get one. I'm 26 and I don't have one (although I'm in the process of getting one). Do you have one?
2) I think Michael Shiavo can be counted on to have her best interests in mind. Terry is brain dead, with no chance of being anything more than a vegitable. Anyone who claims that this is something that is easy for Michael Shiavo I think is being unfair to him. He deserves closure just as much as anyone who loses a spouse.

In either case, legally, these are not reasons to put the Constitution aside and let Congress and the President interfere in a private issue.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home