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.

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.

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.

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.

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”?