23 March 2005
The Schiavo Death Watch and the New American Aristocracy
The situation on this has so many ramifications, that it's easy to get off into the rhetorical wilderness on many significant, but somewhat peripheral issues. The fundamental issue is a matter of life or death - and the spectacle of an innocent woman being judicially murdered by means of starvation is enough to give me a sick feeling as I consider it. People who do less than this to animals are arrested for abuse, and men who did much less than this to others in Iraq as they sought to defend this nation are looking at potential jail time in courts martial. Not so to Terri's alleged husband Michael, and his legal and quasi-medical support claque.
Terri's de-facto ex-husband, has the best doctors and lawyers his money can buy to tell him (and us) what he wants us to hear, under the (purported) medical leadership of one Dr. Robert Cranford, who is the primary advocate that Terri is in a "permanent vegetative state" has a publication record that indicates to any rational person that he has a personal axe to grind here too - since he has been an active advocate of the "right to die" viewpoint. So much for scientific objectivity on the side of the death advocates.
The background circumstances of her case are, at a MINIMUM, highly questionable. Michael Schiavo has about as much credibility as a husband to Terri, as the 3rd Reich had as the protector of European Jewry. Both had one (and the same) outcome in mind for their subjects. There is testimony of actual harm and what would appear to be cases of attempted murder of her on his part. From what I have seen in interviews, etc., there is more testimonial evidence to this effect concerning M.S. than there was against Scott Peterson. But the death advocates steadfastly refuse to consider any of these circumstances, in spite of the years-long pattern that they form.
Another deep issue that has been illuminated by this case is the existance of a class of American aristocrats, who weild thus far unlimited political power, governed only by their own personal whim and preference. This class could be referred to as a "LEGALITY", in the same sense that rule by feudal ruling nobles were collectively known as the "NOBILITY". Just as there were formerly the so-called great nobles, lesser nobles, and the lower ranking equestrian, or knightly class, the LEGALITY would seem to consist of ranks of ever-more powerful and autonomous lawyers ranging from main-street practitioners (corresponding to the knights, perhaps not coincidentally still using the abbreviated designation Esq., for esquire), up to those designated as being "Supreme" in their status, assuming through precedent, personal power that is unmatched anywhere else in our political or governmental establishment. It must needs be noted that not all members of this legal class are abusive of their power, or corrupt either financially or politically.
Keeping that important fact in mind, it must still be accepted that overall, the structure of the appelate court system is dominated by those who have no compunction with twisting the law, splitting hairs of meaning, and warping the fabric of government itself to become something that would be as alien to the drafters of the Constitution as it is abhorrent to me. If one doubts that this would be the case, review the Federalist Papers and liberally apply reason (see, liberalism isn't ALWAYS bad!) - the outcome is indisputable, unless one sinks into the relativistic and deconstructionist morass of modern critical rhetoric.
Anyway, where this issue brings us, like many others during this time, is to an awful realization that the glory of the American Constitutional system is in danger of being fatally damaged and transmogrified into something that would be unrecognizable to our ancestors. If this is NOT to happen, some control over the deconstructionist logic of much of the higher judiciary MUST be riened in. THAT is why the libDems are in danger of going fully ballistic at the threat of the use of the constitutional option to restore majority rule in the "advice and consent" of judicial appointments. If we are unable or unwilling to restore the judiciary to judges who will take an originalist view in constitutional interpretation, then it will be amen to Constitutional rule, and government of the people, and by the people, WILL perish from the earth!
All too often we seem to turn away from making the right choices in our pursuit of personal convenience and material desires. After all, it's so inconvenient to deal with the infirm, disabled, and aged - and besides, it's too expensive - so encourage them to an early grave, and if THAT proves too expensive, why, there's always Soylent Green!
Terri's de-facto ex-husband, has the best doctors and lawyers his money can buy to tell him (and us) what he wants us to hear, under the (purported) medical leadership of one Dr. Robert Cranford, who is the primary advocate that Terri is in a "permanent vegetative state" has a publication record that indicates to any rational person that he has a personal axe to grind here too - since he has been an active advocate of the "right to die" viewpoint. So much for scientific objectivity on the side of the death advocates.
The background circumstances of her case are, at a MINIMUM, highly questionable. Michael Schiavo has about as much credibility as a husband to Terri, as the 3rd Reich had as the protector of European Jewry. Both had one (and the same) outcome in mind for their subjects. There is testimony of actual harm and what would appear to be cases of attempted murder of her on his part. From what I have seen in interviews, etc., there is more testimonial evidence to this effect concerning M.S. than there was against Scott Peterson. But the death advocates steadfastly refuse to consider any of these circumstances, in spite of the years-long pattern that they form.
Another deep issue that has been illuminated by this case is the existance of a class of American aristocrats, who weild thus far unlimited political power, governed only by their own personal whim and preference. This class could be referred to as a "LEGALITY", in the same sense that rule by feudal ruling nobles were collectively known as the "NOBILITY". Just as there were formerly the so-called great nobles, lesser nobles, and the lower ranking equestrian, or knightly class, the LEGALITY would seem to consist of ranks of ever-more powerful and autonomous lawyers ranging from main-street practitioners (corresponding to the knights, perhaps not coincidentally still using the abbreviated designation Esq., for esquire), up to those designated as being "Supreme" in their status, assuming through precedent, personal power that is unmatched anywhere else in our political or governmental establishment. It must needs be noted that not all members of this legal class are abusive of their power, or corrupt either financially or politically.
Keeping that important fact in mind, it must still be accepted that overall, the structure of the appelate court system is dominated by those who have no compunction with twisting the law, splitting hairs of meaning, and warping the fabric of government itself to become something that would be as alien to the drafters of the Constitution as it is abhorrent to me. If one doubts that this would be the case, review the Federalist Papers and liberally apply reason (see, liberalism isn't ALWAYS bad!) - the outcome is indisputable, unless one sinks into the relativistic and deconstructionist morass of modern critical rhetoric.
Anyway, where this issue brings us, like many others during this time, is to an awful realization that the glory of the American Constitutional system is in danger of being fatally damaged and transmogrified into something that would be unrecognizable to our ancestors. If this is NOT to happen, some control over the deconstructionist logic of much of the higher judiciary MUST be riened in. THAT is why the libDems are in danger of going fully ballistic at the threat of the use of the constitutional option to restore majority rule in the "advice and consent" of judicial appointments. If we are unable or unwilling to restore the judiciary to judges who will take an originalist view in constitutional interpretation, then it will be amen to Constitutional rule, and government of the people, and by the people, WILL perish from the earth!
All too often we seem to turn away from making the right choices in our pursuit of personal convenience and material desires. After all, it's so inconvenient to deal with the infirm, disabled, and aged - and besides, it's too expensive - so encourage them to an early grave, and if THAT proves too expensive, why, there's always Soylent Green!
