It has been 5 years since the Terri Schiavo case was one of the most prominent issues in the American press. At that time, it was next to impossible to talk to anyone about the Terri Shiavo matter without emotions entering the conversation. Now, five years later, the emotions have subsided, perhaps it's time to revisit the case, and the issues that were at stake, and the decisions that were made, and the choices America made. I believe Americans chose, in 2005, to preserve a system of justice that has been a cornerstone of the republic for nearly 235 years.
more ...
A brief synopsis of the case as a reminder: The case involved a seven-year legal battle by a man named Michael Shiavo to have his wife, Terri, who was being kept alive by a "feeding tube," declared in a "permanent vegetative state" and the tube removed. Michael Shiavo was successful in his legal battle, and his wife's feeding tube was removed on March 18, 2005. She died two weeks later on March 31, 2005.
Most people today (if they remember the case with any clarity at all) would probably have difficulty telling you why it was significant. I can tell you why I think it was a landmark case:
1. While decrying the decisions of "activist judges", the radical right-wing was attempting to do what? They wanted to replace existing federal judges with new judges who would vote their way, regardless of the law. (Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was a primary target at that time. Among those calling for his impeachment were Phyllis Schlafly, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, and rightwing author-lawyer Edwin Vieira. For the record, Justice Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court). In other words, they simply wanted their own "activist judges" and the law be damned. At its very best, that was rank hypocrisy, and it absolutely stank. It was wrong.
2. The rightwing also attempted to break down the wall of separation between the three branches of government ... I canceled our family's membership in the Home School Legal Defense Association that Spring because the President of that organization, Michael Farris, an attorney, wanted to change American law to allow Congress to nullify or override court decisions. We can't allow that. For the record, Farris's efforts met with failure.
3. At least in the Old South, the Deep South, where I was born and raised and voted and lived for 45 years of my life, Schiavo was seen as a states-rights issue, which it certainly was. But you had conservatives, traditionally pro-states-rights calling for the federal government to assume new powers to overrule the states. It was hypocrisy in the extreme for these "conservatives" to call for the federal government to override Florida's court decisions in the case of Terri Schiavo. As conservatives, I asked then, did we really want greater federal government power, more federal government interference in our personal lives? Is that what we really wanted? If so, then when, exactly, did the meaning of "conservative" change? When was a strong states-rights position abandoned? And why wasn't I told about that change?
What was really happening in the Schiavo case was an attack on the American system of justice. Most Americans recognized it for what it was; Americans fought back and the case was a huge setback for those who sought radical changes in the American judicial system, and a removal of the barrier between Church and State, and between the three branches of government, and between state and federal powers. It spelled the end of the career ambitions of Tennessee Senator Bill Frist and Texas Congressman Tom DeLay (probably the most prominent, if not the most activist, "birther").
But most importantly, the case brought an abrupt end to the rightwing's arrogance in power, and I believe marked the beginning of a landslide decline of that power and influence, as many Americans recognized their attempts for what they were, not to save one woman's life, but an attempt to bring about radical changes to our American system of governance, and to alter a tradition of two centuries. And rank hypocrisy.
The Schiavo case was really about a decision: Is the U.S. a nation of men, or a nation of laws? Americans decided that question in Terri Shiavo, and they decided well. Correctly. America was, and is, to be a nation guided by the rule of law, not by the ambitions, whims, and prejudices of men.
Those who believe otherwise are at work still, today, seeking to bring about the downfall of the U.S. President. These people; really the very same people who brought Terry Schiavo to national attention; are pathological in their sick pursuit of a world in which they, and they alone, decide what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, who shall live and who shall die. Five years ago, Americans recognized the Terry Schiavo case for what it was, an exploitative attempt to gain political power and I believe they'll recognize the same goal in today's Tea Party movement. It's all about power; not principle.