musing minds

Part of the problem in the debate over judicial activism is the belief on the part of many that judges possess superior qualities from the rest of the population. Judges weigh competing facts and interpret the law and come to decisions. They are humans who possess the same traits of bias, envy, greed, self importance and self loathing that the rest of us have in varying degrees. They bring these traits to the table every time they arrive at a decision. Until we can design robots intelligent enough to replace humans on the judiciary, this will continue to be the case.

But to many, judges are superior beings who somehow possess the ability to derive “the truth”. It is so if a judge says it’s so. The Schiavo case was a perfect example of this. As a case in point, Ann Althouse (who, by the way, thought that Schumer did a good job of defending his opposition to the filibuster on Meet the Press last weekend) had this to say about recent comments from Justice Kennedy:

But I love the cool, measured response that models judicial demeanor. It helps people see that judges function in a different way from politicians, even though the politicians are pushing the proposition that they don’t.

Apparently judges don’t have agendas or hold political views, they are above the political fray. Justice R2 D2 in the year 2199 maybe, but today our judges are still human.

Tony Blankley wrote a scathing piece about Tom DeLay’s attackers. He also goes after those Republicans that seem to be cutting and running from their faithful leader. Check out his final paragraph:

If a party can be stampeded by phony charges and a run of shoddy stories in whorish newspapers into dumping their most effective congressional leader, I wouldn’t give 2 cents for their near-term future. A party that would voluntarily cut off its own testicles and FedEx them to their opponent as a trophy, is not likely to manifest any regenerative powers. That’s the thing about losing those organs.

He also has some choice words for the NYT, I suggest you read the whole thing.

Here’s an extensive article about the biased MSM’s failure to report good news out of Iraq. I think its a well written article, but it seems that everything in it has been said a hundred times before on the blogosphere.

I’d say that’s more a testament to the blogosphere being ahead in the enlightenment game, than an indictment of David Limbaugh. Reading it reminded me of the fact that most of the public is still in the dark on MSM bias and other issues regularily discussed on blogs. Last year, before I entered the Matrix, that article would have seemed so radical to me.

I find it hard to imagine that that framers of the Constitution silently wanted to have a process which is designed to thwart the other explicitly created processes. That’s like saying a car maker intended its line of cars to have a chronic stalling problem. At least let’s start with an honest debate and recognize that the filibuster was a political tool created after-the-fact and cut out all this “it’s part of our constitution” nonsense.

Kaus takes a look at the reasons for ending the filibuster, and cites Rick Hertzberg of the New Yorker as follows:

But as a longtime constitutional reformer, Hertzberg is himself an anti-filibusterist, recognizing that the Constitution–which doesn’t mention filibusters–already makes it way too difficult for the government to pass laws desired by a majority. Think about it: An identical bill has to pass two different legislatures, with differing terms, and then be approved by a President who may or may not be in the majority party. Isn’t that difficult enough? Why add an extra, non-constitutional rule that makes it even harder to get anything done?

But Kaus and Hertzberg go on to state how appointing judicial nominees is different than passing legislation because its a permanent decision and we don’t want to be left with a radical judge for life. But again, isn’t this just another ex post facto political rationalization? I don’t think you can have it both ways without saying “the Constitution be damned”. And I don’t hear too many Democrats saying that.

Modo and Friedman demoted? Kinda looks that way. Is Dowd low hanging fruit on the tree of accountability or is she just getting tiresome? Probably a bit of both. I’m not holding my breath for the NYT to dramatically change its approach any time soon. Hat tip Lorie at Polipundit

Just caught Fox News Sunday and Sen. Schumer (D) was on looking increasingly desperate on the judicial filibuster issue. He actually said that by allowing a simple up down majority vote it would make the Senate look like a “banana republic.”

A couple of observations. Usually when somebody looks and sounds desperate, that’s because they are desperate. In addition to the above ridiculous comment, he hedged on the question as to whether Republicans have the votes to stop the filibuster, saying that he’s spoken to a number of Republican senators that will vote for it even though they know it is wrong. Translation: the Republicans probably have the votes.

As for the “banana republic” comment, my father emigrated from a totalitarian regime which recently embraced democracy. They danced in the streets in celebration of the fact that they finally were able to have majority rule. Schumer, like so many other Dems these days, appears to have completely lost all perspective. Opposing what is effectively a minority veto over the majority is totalitarianism to the Dems. I think DJ over at PoliPundit is on to something when he writes about the destruction of the Democratic party.

Powerline has a couple of good takes on the Talking Points Memo story here and here. I’m happy to say that they too noticed the “real but inaccurate” irony, which I mentioned awhile ago.

Here’s my last word on the issue: those on the left acting all outraged at us conservative bloggers for speculating that the media used forged memos, is sort of like chastising a woman for accusing her cheating boyfriend of having another affair when this time he “only” had his hand on her butt.

To use the immortal words of Glenn Reynolds……heh.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has a good summary as well.

The Anchoress has moved from Blogger, please see her at her new address: http://www.theanchoressonline.com

The Anchoress

updated below
That’s what Beth Gaddy (36) said about her “Grandmamma” Mae Magouirk (85). The entire quote is as follows:

Grandmamma is old and I think it’s time she went home to Jesus. She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?

I first heard about this story yesterday via my friend Jeanette at Oh How I Love Jesus. Today, I see that other bloggers have picked up on it, including Instapundit, Mover Mike, GOP Bloggers, Polipundit, and Junk Yard Blog.

Mae Magouirk has signed a living will stating that she doesn’t want feeding and hydration if she is terminal, in a coma or vegetative. Mae is not in any of these conditions. Her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, moved her to the hospice telling them that she held a medical power of attorney for her grandmother and that she wanted food and water removed. Gaddy did not have a medical power of attorney for her grandmother. Other, closer, family members (Mae’s brother and sister) are fighting for her life.

Unlike Terri’s case, there is clear direction given in a living will for care. This is being ignored by the granddaughter and the probate judge in Georgia who disregarded the living will and the lack of a durable medical power of attorney and gave guardianship to the granddaughter over the objections of closer relatives.

At 36, Beth Gaddy might not want to “live with disabilities like these”, but let her wait until she’s 81, maybe with the same disabilities, or more disabilities or worse disabilities. How much will she “want to live” then?

After Christopher Reeves’ accident, many people said, “I wouldn’t want to live like that.” They said so as able-bodied people. Christopher Reeves probably said something along the same lines when he was younger and not disabled. Once the accident took place though, he wanted to live his life to the fullest that he could.

No one wakes up one morning and says, “I want to have a disability that will effect my life forever.” When it happens, though, you live with it. You make changes to accomodate the disability. You may not be able to do some things that you enjoy anymore, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t find something else to enjoy that you can do.

I have a disabled daughter. She has epilepsy, a developmental delay and moderate hearing and vision losses. She doesn’t speak much, or very clearly. What will happen to her after I’m gone? Will someone, somewhere ask, “who would want to live with disabilities like those?” Would someone, somewhere decide that her life is not worth living, or that resources expended on her would be better spent elsewhere? And then decide to “euthanize” her?

Update: Dirty Harry says:

So, I await the outrage from the butchers who screamed for Terri Schiavo’s head. After all wasn’t their argument that we needed to respect Terri’s wishes? Well, we have a living will here. Let’s see if the death merchants are consistent and outraged that this woman’s “wishes” are being violated. Wishes she put in writing. Wishes that are being ignored. Let’s see if the death merchants fight to reinsert this feeding tube because all this really is about is what the patient wants, not getting rid of troublesome invalids. “Oh, no, not us.”

Update 2: The Glenn Beck Show audio of the interview with Mae’s nephew is here.

Welcome Anchoress and Cathouse Chat readers, please look around.

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune had a column April 1st titled Beware of letting the unacceptable become the norm.

He speaks about Terri Schindler Schiavo and wonders what is next…

I suppose that no matter which side of this you’re on, you’ll have questions. Those of you who think she should have died will wonder: When will people like me ever shut up about this?

And those of us on the other side will wonder which disability will next be judged as not affording an adequate quality of life? Whose lives are worthy?

But there is another question that won’t let go of me: How did we get to this place, where we’ve come to accept what was done to Terri Schiavo?

What was once horrible has now become acceptable, familiar the way a landscape becomes familiar. No matter how gruesome or spectacular, over time you become used to it. Eventually, you can walk through it without feeling any need to comment.

And that’s what’s being urged now, a general consensus forming by those who don’t want to hear complaints, that it’s time to be silent about Schiavo, that we shouldn’t give offense, that we should accept her death as inevitable, perhaps rationalize her death as a blessing.

When John heard the announcement on the radio he was reading a column by John Leo in US News and World Report who quoted Rev. Richard Neuhaus, editor of First Things.

He says he will memorize this quote. I think I will too.

“Thousands of ethicists and bioethicists, as they are called, professionally guide the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable, until it is finally established as the unexceptional.”

There was a day when the Playtex Cross Your Heart bra was advertised on television and the model wore the bra OVER a turtleneck sweater. Underwear, worn normally, was just not shown on television. Now Victoria’s Secret advertises bras with a lot less coverage directly on the model. This change was accepted completely.

There was a day when anti-perspirants and deodorants were advertised on television and the model demonstrated the product on the inside of the forearm. The brother of a friend of mine, when first using these products, put it on his armpits and on his forearms, because they did it on television. Armpits were just not shown in a television commercial. Now we see women applying the product correctly in television commercials. This change was accepted completely. We don’t see men applying the product though. I guess a man’s armpit still is just not shown on television.

Rob and Laura Petrie of the Dick Van Dyke show had separate twin beds in their bedroom. Two characters of the opposite sex, even if married, were just not shown in the same bed on television. Then came NYPD Blue and we saw the naked backsides of two male characters. This change was accepted completely.

These changes are insidious, they happen when we aren’t looking and then become accepted. It becomes “well, we can do this, so why can’t we do that?

Remember the Golden Rule? “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” That seems to have changed to “Do unto others whatever you can get away with, and if you get caught, put the blame on anything and anyone other than yourself.”