Taken by Sturm?
One of the guilty pleasures of following the otherwise macabre Terri Schiavo case is hearing Michael Schiavo apologists attempt to play “gotcha.” Almost inevitably, these efforts fall flat, even when they come from otherwise sensible bloggers. Radley Balko has a lot of interesting things to say, but his efforts to practice law without a license were a hoot, though to his credit, he has backtracked a bit on his two silliest arguments, namely ex post facto and bill of attainder, ultimately admitting that his legal training is “modest,” an understatement on the order of John “John” Kennedy’s apparent admission he was “really not that experienced a pilot.”
Another gem, also from a generally sensible blogger with a Michael-Schiavo-shaped blind spot, was Joe Gandelman, who declared himself “puzzled” (or should that be “shocked, shocked!”?) over the fact that Republicans, who generally support “smaller government,” would ever allow the federal government to do anything. His attempt at snarkage was reminiscent of the “damn, I’m clever” grin that froze on Ceci Conolly’s mug for several seconds after she delivered what she must have thought was a knockout punch on Republicans and federalism last Friday on Brit Hume. This thread has prompted at least two other dumb alecks to weigh in, Rhianna Schoon and Richard Bennett. Rhianna throws out too many bogus “constitutional” arguments to reprint here, while Richard asked a question from Mars, namely how many anti-starvation activists believe in the Biblical, non-evolutionary theory of Creation. Apparently, he either thinks it’s OK to starve people to death if they evolved from other species eons ago, but doesn’t think it’s OK to do so if God created Adam, Eve and/or Steve a mere 6,000 years ago. Either that or he thinks all religionists are so out and out loopy that they ought to be disenfranchised. I’m not sure which.
The latest failed attempt at a gotcha, if I’m reading it right, comes from Steve Sturm, the seer who boldly predicted George W. Bush’s defeat a full month prior to the November 2004 election, prompting frequent commenter Dafydd ab Hugh to thank his lucky stars he’s not a soldier in Fallujah.
One, is it safe to assume that you favor of judge/forum shopping, and that you promise to never criticize the liberals and plaintiff’s attorneys when they engage in the same behavior?
Two, in light of your past criticisms of Terry’s fate having rested with a ’single judge’, how can you support this law which gives a single judge the authority to review the case?
On the off-chance that these questions really are sincere, and not just an attempted gotcha in the vein of this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, my answers are below.
- I don’t make generic promises like that. Besides, it’s not as though I’ve complained all that much about forum shopping in the past. Go ahead, search my archives for the phrase “forum shopping.” You’ll find exactly one entry: this one. Not to suggest that the issue isn’t important to me, only that it’s a wee bit less important to me than any of the other 2,153 matters I’ve thus far seen fit to blog about over the past 2 1/2 years.
If I ever do complain about forum shopping – and this is not to suggest I won’t – I may well criticize plaintiffs or liberals for pushing a strained interpretation of the law, as I would on any other issue, but if the law clearly says they have a forum, I sure as hell won’t fault them for using it. In that case, if I have any beef it all it will be with the Legislature(s) that gave them that forum in the first place.
- I don’t recall “my” past criticisms along those lines, so without the benefit of a link or two, it’s rather difficult to defend a past statement I probably never even made. The closest thing I can remember to raising a “single judge” objection is verbally smacking the heads of a few Schiavo apologist pinheads who claimed that six different courts had reached that conclusion separately.
That said, in a life or death situation, to say nothing of a life or extremely painful death situation like Terri’s, asking a separate fact-finder to review the issues de novo does not strike me as such an unreasonable idea. Contrary to the facile “who decides” question raised by Schiavo apologists, I’d ask instead “who gets to kill?” In cases like this one, where reasonable doubts exist as to the patient’s actual wishes, I don’t think the next of kin should have the right to kill the patient over the over the objections of their next-next of kin, or vice-versa. Obviously, this cannot be extended indefinitely, and a line would have to be drawn somewhere, but I don’ t think it’s too much to disallow parents and husbands from killing a woman over each other’s objections. We have too many known cases of husbands murdering their wives for it to be reasonable to assume every husband who claims his disabled wife wants to die must be telling the truth.
Assuming, arguendo, that I did actually say what you say I said, I’m not sure what the big deal is. Asking a second judge to review the facts adds a second layer of protection. If both judges can’t agree that she dies, she lives. That’s a good thing. I don’t want an equal fight between those seeking to preserve life and those seeking to end it. Ever. Not even on the death penalty, which I support for those who have committed crimes a wee bit more serious than not executing a living will.
March 21st, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Ouch! Throwing my ‘Bush Loses’ prediction back at me seems gratuitous and unrelated to the issue at hand (at least I think it is). But I did make that call and I stand prepared to have it rubbed in my face from time to time.
That aside, I’m not a Michael Schiavo apologist. I thought I’ve made it clear that I don’t think highly of either him or what he is trying to do.
Nor am I playing gotcha. Contrary to the liberals playing gotcha, I’m not enjoying this. I’m p***ed off – not because I want her dead but because I believe that many – not all, but many – conservatives (of the blogging persuasion and otherwise) are taking positions and adopting tactics that are inconsistent with our previous (and proper) criticisms of our liberal counterparts that will definitely come back to bite us big time in ways that we can’t even begin to foresee – and I see nothing wrong with pointing that out and trying to do my (admittedly) little part in keeping our side honest.
As to your specific rebuttal, I apologize if I’ve collectively included you in my blanket criticisms for something you haven’t done.
You do seem to be OK with the idea of both changing the rules after the fact and meddling in Florida. The people of Florida decided they were fine with a single fact-finder, with a “less-than-equal fight” between the two sides, and not giving parents the same standing as spouses. It’s one thing to wish they had done things differently and hope they change their laws in the future. But that’s where I draw the line – who am I to impose my beliefs on the people of Florida?
BTW, I’m curious: do I count as an ‘otherwise sensible blogger”?
March 21st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
You’re right that the “bush is toast” stuff addresses a different issue. If it felt a bit below the belt, I apologize. I didn’t intend it to be gratuitous, I raised to show what appears to be a pattern of not being much of a team player among conservatives. My objection was not so much about the fact that you thought Bush was toast when he wasn’t; it was that you said so out loud at a time when the best it could accomplish was to cause other conservatives to lose heart at a time when conservatives could ill afford it. Fortunately, it didn’t accomplish that, either.
As to changing the rules, what rules? I frequently complain when Congress exercises powers it does not have under the Constitution. That doesn’t mean I’m obligated to complain when they exercise rarely-invoked powers that they clearly do have in hopes of accomplishing a result that I also happen to support.
I do agree that it is preferable for a matter like this one to be decided at the state level if possible, but I fail to see why you believe that the people of Florida “decided they were fine” with allowing Terri Schiavo to be starved to death by Michael Schiavo. Their duly elected representatives in the Legislature certainly aren’t fine with it, else they would never have passed Terri’s Law, and Terri would have died a year and a half ago with no involvement of the federal government. If the Florida Supreme “Court” had left well enough alone, Terri would have lived and the issue would have died with no need for any involvement of the federal government. Just like 2000, Florida law was fine until the Florida Supreme “Court” buggered it up, and once again, everyone is mad at the federal government for cleaning up the mess rather than at the Florida Supreme “Court” for making that mess in the first place.
As to your last question, yes, I do consider you, along with the others named in this post, to be an otherwise sensible blogger with a curious blind spot for this issue. Or perhaps just an über-contrarian need to attack fellow conservatives over something every now and then? I don’t know.
March 21st, 2005 at 4:59 pm
I admit I’m not a team player among conservatives. I’ve always thought of myself as someone who has conservative viewpoints rather than being part of a conservative team. Thanks for thinking that I had enough pull – even blogging at Patterico – to cause other conservatives to lose heart. I don’t feel the need to attack fellow conservatives every now and then – but neither do I feel the need to stay quiet when they deserve to be called on the carpet.
I also admit that I’m no attorney, so I am unfamiliar with the powers you say Congress has for sticking itself into this matter, for making a federal issue out of what I think is properly a state matter.
As far as Florida courts being screwed up, I’ll agree that they botched 2000 (at least as far as I viewed the matter). I’m not happy the US Supreme Court got itself involved, even though I very much wanted Bush in the White House. And, just because the Florida courts screwed things up back then doesn’t mean they are wrong now. Even the blind squirrel…
And, finally, I’m not accusing conservatives of abandoning principles because I disagree with them – that’s a tactic the other side of aisle is capable of doing all on their own. I’m doing so because I see them saying and doing things that we would mock Democrats for saying and doing and because I don’t know what principle the GOP/conservatives have that would explain what they are doing.
March 21st, 2005 at 5:46 pm
That’s fine, as long as you understand that it is your opinion, and not a constitutional rule your fellow conservatives should necessarily be expected to abide by. As far as I’m concerned, this principle is good enough: the federal government can do what the Constitution says it can (this bill), and it can’t do what the Constitution doesn’t say it can (most of the expansionist crap liberals try to fedearlize). No inconsistencies there at all, just a difference of opinion of when Congress should or should not exercise the powers it pretty clearly has.