Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
There was no abuse of power here. What we have witnessed here is the congress exercising power over the federal courts, which is granted in Article 3 of the constitution. All federal courts (with the exception of the supreme court) are creations of congress. Congress can give these courts power and take their power away as it pleases. Like it or not, congress was well within its constitutional rights to act as it has.
|
I have to disagree with stevo on a couple of points.
Congress has a place in creating those courts, but they can't just "take away" the power. Congress creates law, the courts interpret. Very few governmental powers created or granted ever are taken away, and never voluntarily. The judicial branch (or any other branch) isn't ever likely to reliquish power (which I think is a good thing -- it adds stability to our governmental structure). But in this case, I think the establishment of this particular power (introducing federal courts to end-of-life decisions) is destabilizing. These day-to-day medical and emotional family decisions, made hundreds of times a day in the United States, are not the purvue of the federal government. If a court is needed, a local court should suffice. That system exists, and Terri's case has been through the hands of a dozen judges in 7 years with 150 doctors testifying about Terri's condition. Every judge has upheld Michael Schiavo's decision as Terri's guardian -- as it should be.
This is incorrectly being called a battle of Terri's civil rights, but it is only loosely disguised as another flex of political power of the religious right. Their strength and organization got Bush II re-elected. The congressional race next year, and the stream of federal judges to be appointed, are very much on the mind of Congress, and no one wants to be on the wrong side of the religious right.
As to Congress' right to act -- Congress was also within its rights to establish Prohibition and other stupid legislation and constitutional amendments, but their appropriateness and necessity are what's at question, both then and now. It's ironic that historically the GOP was the party asking for control of government intervention, and the Democrats were labeled the supporters of big government. Those political labels have completely turned around in my lifetime. Republicans are injecting federal judges into hospice rooms with patiens and doctors and families, and that's fucked up.