Hilary Bok: Hurray for the Judges in the Schiavo Case

Over at Obsidian Wings, Hilary Bok closes the case against conservative critics of the judges who have ruled in umpteen Schiavo decisions. Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes, and on and on: they are all complaining about "judicial activism" in the Schiavo case - by which they mean not only that the judges have ruled outside the scope of their decisionmaking authority, but also that "this entire case is the result of renegade judges." And she points out that the critics of the courts are basically advocating that everyone and anyone rise up against the court system right now:

William Kristol, already quoted: "Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution."

John Gibson, Fox News: "So Jeb, call out the troops, storm the Bastille and tell 'em I sent you."

Bill Bennett: "It is a mistake to believe that the courts have the ultimate say as to what a constitution means. (...) It is time, therefore, for Governor Bush to execute the law and protect her rights, and, in turn, he should take responsibility for his actions. Using the state police powers, Governor Bush can order the feeding tube reinserted. His defense will be that he and a majority of the Florida legislature believe the Florida Constitution requires nothing less."

Ann Coulter: "As a practical matter, courts will generally have the last word in interpreting the law because courts decide cases. But that's a pragmatic point. There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too. (...) Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband."

Alan Keyes: "When time is of the essence, necessity authorizes the executive to safeguard the security of the constitution before citizens and the polity suffer irreversible damage. Terri Schiavo's survival depends on Gov. Bush's faithful execution of this responsibility, and the survival of American self-government on the willingness of all those in a like position to faithfully execute the duties of their high office."

Elizabeth Farah: "Gov. Bush, you have the right to exercise your authority to save this woman's life. You have the authority to reject a corrupt judge's corrupt decision. Remember when the pharoah issued the order that all Hebrew male infants should be killed? What did Moses' mother do? She broke the law of the civil authority. She saved the life of her son. (...) Jesus says that yes, you will have many detractors – people who will revile you for doing the right thing, but you will be rewarded greatly by God."

It really is pretty incredible to read such venomous attacks on officers of the court, although of course not so much so as Congress taking on a single medical decision in late-night session. Hilary "hilzoy" Bok shreds the stupid conservative arguments, of course, but that will be small comfort to Michael Schiavo and 280 million other Americans who have fought so hard to allow Terry Sciavo some peace.

posted Mar 28, 2005 | link | jump to the comments (10)

comments

Here's the key, from the webpage of Philanthropy Roundtable, the organization that funded the Schiavos' fight:
"Our greatest disappointment has involved the courts, an arena in which conservative hopes have largely been dashed over the past quarter-century."
Their motive in funding this cause is to probably get people riled up at the court system, and to set a precedence for overruling it.

- by Geneva on Mar 28, 2005 at 4:33 AM | link

So what's the difference between what Kristol and Bennet advocate and fascism? I'm being quite serious. Moreover, how can these men defend in one breath the rule of law and in the next advocate sending troops to break the law? It seems dangerous in the extreme that these powerful men are openly advocating the overthrow of the judicial process, apparently without shame over their hypocrisy.

- by hb on Mar 28, 2005 at 12:59 PM | link

hb, the difference is between defending inalienable rights and infringing on them.
Neither of the men you name advocate overthrowing "the judicial system.' They advocate disobeying illegal orders.
There is no legality and certainly no legitimacy in a Judicial order forbidding hydration by "natural means."

- by Beverly on Mar 28, 2005 at 3:24 PM | link

Those interested in reading up on the Philanthropy Roundtable (as I was - I hadn't heard of it) - may be interested in this site, which gives a more critical history of the organization than you'll find on it's homepage.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/philanthropy_roundtable.html

- by anon on Mar 29, 2005 at 12:49 AM | link

Will the new litmus test for approving judges to the federal bench no longer be views on abortion but views on the Terri Schiavo case? ..Maurice.

- by Maurice Bernstein, M.D. on Mar 29, 2005 at 3:03 AM | link

According to our system of divided government, judicial edicts and decisions have no teeth beyond convention and tradition. It was designed to be and remains our weakest branch specifically because the executive is not required, as a matter of course, to comply with judicial edicts or decisions. In fact, if the opposite were true, then there would be no need for an executive branch at all. We would have a legislature and a court. Instead, the opposite is the case. Theoretically and Constitutionally (Article III), the legislature could pass a law stating that the Supreme Court could no longer hear or review cases concerning a particular issue, the executive would be constitutionally required to execute that law, and the court would have absolutely no choice but to comply with that execution. Marbury v. Madison (i.e. Judicial Review) would be cut out of the process.
When any member of any executive of any state defies the direct order of the chief executive of that state or of the President in favor of a Judicial edict, it is they who are, in fact, in violation of encroachment, not vice versa.
Furthermore, fascism is a term used to describe a political economic system, as is communism. It is in no way fascist for legislatures to pass laws and executives to execute laws in such manners directed by social contract and constitution.
Of course, I have not said how I "feel" about the case as I don't believe "feelings" are at issue. However, I do hold firmly that it is the judicial power in this country that growing more oligarchic in nature and will continue to do so for as long as we citizens allow it to continue. Republic or Democracy, if you don't want to live in an Oligarchy run by "Philosopher Kings" you might consider thinking about putting a check on the power these individuals think they enjoy before that power becomes reality.

- by Jason on Mar 29, 2005 at 6:23 AM | link

Bill Kristol and Bill Bennet are advocating revolution. We should take Kristol at his word. When he says that we should "rise up" and "choose to govern ourselves," he is basically arguing for secession.
Perhaps, to avoid the bloodshed that is historically implied by such rhetoric, the rest of us could chip in to buy a large slab of (say) Montana, or North Dakota for our modern-day Jeffereson Davis and his confederates. There, they can pay low taxes, eat what they kill, ban birth control and abortion, scold yawning without covering one's mouth (Thanks, Dr. Kass!), and keep their kin alive by any means necessary. Heck, the federal government can even throw in paved roads and national security for free. Since these neo-Confederates are not really conservatives in the economic sense, it won't overly offend them to be the recipient of generous federal subsidies for the advancement of their Utopia.
Think about it...they have nothing to lose but their chains to a sinful, decadent society, and for the rest of us, its a bargain at twice the price.

- by Actually... on Mar 29, 2005 at 7:51 AM | link

As apposed to what? Your regressive Huxleyan Dystopia? Does anyone who writes for this blog actually know why all 51 governments in the United States are comprised of three, not two branches or is that beyond the scope of bioethics (oxymoron) and utilitarian philosophy?

- by Jason on Mar 29, 2005 at 8:51 AM | link

Jason, such a venomous attack! It undercuts your rational, very well argued previous post. Chill, man.

- by Daughter of St. Francis on Mar 29, 2005 at 10:55 AM | link

This phrase stands out "but that will be small comfort to Michael Schiavo and 280 million other Americans who have fought so hard to allow Terry Sciavo some peace."
That's the kind of thinking and close argumentation that one can only find here!

- by Thomas on Mar 29, 2005 at 4:30 PM | link