I know I shouldn't let things get to me, but sometimes I have a hard time believing what comes out of people's mouths. (The same goes for my own mouth at times, but that's a different post.)
This article will appear in the NY Times tomorrow (link from How Appealing). Let's just look at a few sections and quotes, shall we?
"Conservatives . . . say the court treatment of the Schiavo case illustrates a judiciary that is willing to ignore the will of the public and elected officials."
I'd like to know precisely who said this, because it's just idiocy. The full text of the law is here. One doesn't need a law degree (indeed, one only needs to know how to read) to see that the bill grants federal jurisdiction to the case. It allows her parents to sue in District Court. Nothing else. There is no directive that a verdict be entered in their favor. Indeed, I'm not sure such a directive to the courts would be legal. As much as the congress members who voted for the bill may have wanted the result in the District Court to be different, their intention or desires are irrelevant in the law.* What matters is the plain text of the law they passed. The court even assumed arguendo that the law is constitutional, which is debatable. To say that the court "ignored the will of the public and elected officials" is just plain wrong. I'll be generous and assume gross ignorance on the part of anyone who says that. Additionally, since it's unattributed, I can't ignore the very real possibility that the press exaggerated the sentiment somewhat.
Next: "'Judge Whittemore has engaged in a gross abuse of judicial power,' said Burke J. Balch of the National Right to Life Committee."
Um, no. I don't know much about the case law cited in the case, with the exception of Mathews (it played a significant role in the case I'm working on for my case note). On the surface though, the complaint (see below for a link) seems pretty weak. It seems well within possibility that the judge made the correct assessment, that the parents failed to show that they have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, which is required for a temporary restraining order. It's also quite a coincidence that Balch uses the term "gross abuse," because abuse of discretion is exactly what the appellate court would have to find in order to reverse the ruling. It's a high burden, and not likely to be met.
Next: "Mr. Viguerie [a conservative mailing coordinator] added, 'It is very dramatic proof of what we have been saying: that the judiciary is out of control.'"
Um, no. It seems to me that trying to legislate jurisdiction for the benefit of two people (the parents) is out of control, but that's another matter.
Next: "'Just because there is a judge somewhere in the world who would give an estranged husband like that the time of day tells you how bad the court system is,' the Rev. Jerry Falwell said."
This one is just too easy. Seriously, here's an appeal to anyone who might be Republican/conservative and reads this: Is the Nutball Jerry Falwell the person you want to be your voice? Seriously? I like to think that most people, on either side of the spectrum, are reasonable, but this guy? You've got to be kidding me!
Next: "Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, had tough words for the justices: 'When this tragic episode is resolved, the Supreme Court will have some serious questions to answer about its silence and arbitrary interpretation of federalism, but those questions will have to wait for now.'"
Are you kidding me!?! This is the guy who was a prime mover on a bill that bequeathed jurisdiction to a federal court on a single case that was fully litigated in state court!! And he wants to talk about federalism? Never mind that "arbitrary interpretation of federalism" is something about which the liberals (or at least this liberal) have been crying foul for years.
Now, there's some hyperbole on the part of a couple liberals quoted in the article, as well. "Nan Aron, founder of Alliance for Justice, a liberal group [said,] '. . . this case . . . certainly would be their excuse to enthusiastically support George Bush's court-packing agenda.'" Nominating conservative judges is hardly "court packing." That's a pretty specific term to a particular practice, as far as I know. Bush is trying to fill the court system with conservative judges, and I wouldn't expect anything different. I totally disagree with his selection of the few people I've researched (and I suspect I'd feel the same way about the others, if I bothered to look into it), but it his prerogative to nominate whomever he pleases.
Overall, though, the collective apoplexy on the part of the religious right on this particular issue seems to be getting out of hand.
[UPDATE: I should clarify that while the intent of the legislators is relevant in some circumstances, as a general rule if a statute is clear and plain on its face, courts will not jump through hoops to add in the 'intent' of the legislature.]
