WWW Opinion Times

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Terri Shiavo has Died

A sad day has just begun in the United States. The courts successfully killed a human being based upon their judgement that that life was not valuable to society.

This makes a severly harmful precedent in our government institutions which must be fixed immediately.

Peggy Noonan recently stated that if Schiavo were to die, it could be disasterous for Republicans in the polls. I believe that unless Congress, the President, the Florida Legislature and Governor and Legislatures and Governors in every state take a strong stand to balance powers by reducing the current influence of the courts, there will be political consequences.

Despite the fact that polls seem to indicate most Americans supported the removal of Terri's souce of food, when the facts are presented, people know that this was a horrible act of cruelty.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Terri Shiavo and Evolving Standards of Life

As Terri Shiavo nears death while the Judicial and Executive Branches sit on their collective hands, one wonders how we came to this place where the life of one person becomes such a political issue.

We cannot turn on the News without hearing about the Terri Shiavo case: Updates on legal briefs, attorneys flying between Pinnelas County, Atlanta, GA and Washington, D.C.; strings of arrested adults and children desperately attempting to give Terri water; interviews with attorneys and relatives and pundits.

Government as well has put much of its business on hold: Congress totally shifted its agenda for more than a week in a desperate attempt to obtain de novo review of the case and judges from Pinnellas County to Atlanta to Washington have moved their dockets to the side for all night reviews of the case.

This draws comparisons to another case of a disabled person who was the subject of hours of television time and Congressional hearings. This person was severly handicapped. Care for this person cost hundredes of thousands of dollars and the dedication of family and nursing care.

What was this person's name you ask? Christopher Reeve. Except no court determined his care. His wife stayed with him to the bitter end. If he weren't Christopher Reeve, by his own admission, he would have had a horrible quality of life. No, he did not have brain damage, but the need for specialized care was equally great. But we fought for him. We adored him. We sympathized with his condition and lauded him as a hero. He was Superman in our eyes humbled by circumstance.

Why did we care so much for Reeve and yet stand on the precipice of discarding Terri Shiavo? There is a factor which binds these cases inexorably together, and it's not that they were both disabled. It's the culture of death which has sprung up in our laws since some short amount of time prior to 1973 and Roe v. Wade.

In the case of Christopher Reeve, we will destroy human life while an embryo to obtain a cure. Terri Shiavo is being destroyed to make life easier for a husband. Though we don't fully understand it yet, we know as a culture that we prefer the death of uneasy things to keep things easy. Yet the bulk of our history is the acceptance of uneasiness as the price for freedom.

Throughout history, despotism has always arisen out of the pursuit of peace and ease. And despotism is the power of the sword; it grasps within its hands the power of life and death. Free societies err on the side of life. I question at this moment whether we are truly free.

Saturday, March 19, 2005

Judicial Edict Regarding Terri Schiavo, et. al., Prove We Are No Longer Ruled by a Constitution

I have attempted to be rational and add to constructive discussion. But I am very angry, so I am going to vent.

Until Federal and State judges are held to account for their rulings, we no longer have freedom in this country. Laws passed by duly elected representatives are struck down as "unconstitutional" only when they relate to social issues at the forefront of political debate. Legal opinions taken in other countries outside the framework of our own constitution are used to impose social change. Far too many of the most important constitutional rights cases taken to the Supreme Court are done so by politically oriented legal organizations under the guise of representation of an offended party. In particular, but not exclusively, Roe v. Wade was the result of a short group of meetings with Norma McCorvey to establish a legal relationship with her with no continual contact on the part of her political activist lawyers before or after the decision was handed down.

Now Terri Schiavo may die, and the courts are thumbing their noses at Congress and the Florida Legislature and at Governor Jeb Bush. This kind of action by duly elected representatives who, despite what Peggy Noonan says, will receive no backlash from voters if Terri Schiavo dies CLEARLY WARRANTS that unaccountable judges become more subserviant to legislative and executive demands.

It's an outrage! It must stop!

I thank Peggy Noonan for making an argument about political outcomes in this matter. She is correct in this assesment:
It is not at all in the political interests of senators and congressmen to earn the wrath of the pro-Schiavo group and the gratitude of the anti-Schiavo husband, by doing nothing.
The electoral backlash will not arise merely out the death of Terri Schiavo. It will arise out of voter demands that Congress and the President take a stand and clean house in the judiciary. It will come against Senate leadership if they do not beat down the harping of Democrats by muzzling them with limitations on the filibuster.

Stack the Court! Impeach the judges! Start with a clean slate!

It's time to "go for broke" and turn back Marbury v. Madison forever. John Marshall, I believe, never fully understood the argument he was making when he asserted the authority of the Court. Contrary to his formula for Checks and Balances, we are freer when bad laws are passed by the whims of representatives who can be voted out of office rather than dictated by judges who cannot (or will not) be made accountable.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Could the Political Blogsphere Be Harmed by McCain-Feingold?

Captain's Quarters has an excellent analysis of why McCain-Feingold could hinder or destroy the effectiveness of blogs in the political arena.

We'll be watching this closely at Opinion Times.

Pro-Lifers Can Win for Dems--If They Want To

Democrats must have a death wish. They must. Every step they take they perceive as a home run, but is turning into a disaster.

Here is a list of actions praised internally which lack introspection:

  1. Harry Reid becomes Minority Leader in the Senate

  2. Howard Dean becames Chairman and promply bashes conservatives and continutes to alienate pro-life Democrats.

  3. And according to PoliPundit, they are about the shut out two pro-life Democrat Senate candidates ahead in the polls with pro-abortion primary challengers likely to be defeated in Democrat pro-abortion primaries.

I say, "bring it on. You're doing great guys. Keep up the good work."

Why is David Pryor Being Filibustered?

Power Line has a good point.

Opinion Times 10/22/04: The Supreme Court is the Least Discussed Campaign Issue

Harkening back to my discussion last October where I opined that the Supreme Court was the least discussed campaign issue, I don't mean to forward too much of an "I told you so" in light of the recent Court decision to deny states the right to impose the death penalty on juvenile murderers. It was a horrid decision based solely on a presumed need to conform to the standards of other countries. It was a outrage to Constitutional principles and seemingly makes extra-Constitutional analysis stare decisis necessary be performed in future cases in that and other courts.

The Greatest Generation gives us an example of the type murderer which has had their death sentence effectively commuted to life in prison here (via Michelle Malkin).

Other examples abound. Justice--after this decision--does not.

Catholic Courage "In the Arena"

Kudos goes out to Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput who shows himself to be an example of the role of church leaders in the public debate. In a speech a subsequent question and answer session before the City Club of Denver, he stood on solid ground by refuting the lie that church leaders are supposed to refrain from giving input into our political process.

When challenged about religious leaders and believers "imposing their views" on society and in government he retorted that "if we don't - you'll impose your views on us."
Rocky Mountain News: "'For religious believers not to advance their convictions about public morality in public debate is not an example of tolerance - it's a lack of courage."
Exactly! And it's a rallying call to all of us who believe biblical morality is something significant and useful in advancing and protecting our freedoms.

John Adams said, "[Our] Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government any other." The foundation of our freedom is not government institutions but self-government--especially that in the family. Self-government is sustained by individual effort in the political debate. For Christians, that includes a substantive, biblical response to government action and societal norms.

Hat Tip Confessions of a Political Junkie

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Regarding the Influence of Foreign Laws in Supreme Court Decisions

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government."

--George Washington
I receive the "Founders Quote Daily" from the Federalist Patriot website. If you would like to subscribe to their regular emails, click here.

Wictory Wednesday

Minnesota is perhaps the best opportunity for Republicans to pick up a Senate seat in 2006. How sweet would it be if the state that gave us Humphrey and Mondale had two Republican senators and a Republican governor?

You can help make this happen. Mark Kennedy, the strongest Republican candidate, has a web site up and running, where you can contribute online. If he were to put up decent fundraising numbers this early in the process, he could dissuade any strong Democrat challengers from getting in the race. Even a small contribution from you could help make that happen. So please contribute whatever you can to Kennedy’s campaign.

Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, hundreds of bloggers ask their readers to donate to an important Republican campaign.

If you’re a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays by e-mailing me at wictory@blogsforbush.com. I’ll add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll. I’ll also send you a reminder e-mail every Wednesday, explaining which candidate to support that day.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

Howard Dean on the "Tolerance" Front

Howard Dean took a little trip to Kansas (wait, did I mean Iowa?).

In a tolerant speech to promote tolerance where the intolerant seem more intolerant to those who promote tolerance, Howard Dean, hot on the heels of his appointment to DNC chair, comes out of the box with this:
LJWorld.com: "'Moderate Republicans can't stand these people (conservatives), because they're intolerant. They don't think tolerance is a virtue,' Dean said, adding: 'I'm not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant.'"
Ahhhhh! Feel the love *swoon*!

And then, to put a nice cherry on top of the sundae. . .
And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he added: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
Proving which man in the state had the better political instincts, Derrick Sontag, Executive Director of the Kansas Republican Party had this to say.
"My immediate reaction to that whole dialogue is, it's full of hatred," Sontag said. "The Democratic Party has elected a leader that's full of hatred."