The Pendragon's Hall

The way the courts continue to pretend they have some kind of respect for law is laughable. Even precedent here is not on their side. During the Florida Supreme Court case (SCOFLA) in 2000, Palm Beach v. Katherine Harris, I find that the Florida Supreme Court ordered all election proceedings to stop while they considered Palm Beach's complaints. The exact wording of the case: "By orders dated Friday, November 17, 2000, this Court accepted jurisdiction, set an expedited briefing schedule, and enjoined the Secretary and the Elections Canvassing Commission from certifying the results of the presidential election until further order of this court." At first glance this appears understandable--the justices needed time to hear the evidence and needed to stop the process until they were sure of what to do, so that Al Gore didn't lose the election in the meantime. Perfectly acceptable. Until you realize they now deny Terry Schiavo the same benefits. Judge after judge is refusing to order to feeding tube reinserted while evidence is heard. This is ridiculous. If it was necessary in one, it is certainly necessary in the other. Al Gore didn't like Terry Lewis' ruling so he appealed it. The court stopped the process he didn't like so they could hear his case. Terri's parents didn't like the lower court's ruling and appealed the decision. The higher court refused to even reinsert the feeding tube in the meantime. It really seems as if they're hoping she dies before all the legal cases come due. This is ludicrous and we know where it will lead. After this long protracted battle and agony, people will say, "Let's not do this again; let's inject them and kill them painlessly." Basically what is happening here is one branch of the government, the judiciary, is ordering the murder of a disabled citizen. The judiciary appears to think itself the sole, unchecked check on the rest of the government. There is nothing to suggest that in the Constitution itself. The judiciary was to interpret the laws and the only way they were going to be a check on the other branches was by telling them when they were acting unconstitutionally. But no judge has yet said Terri Schiavo's parents are acting unconstitutionally, or the President, or Congress for that matter. They just said: "We are not going to let you." If the executive and legislative branches allow them to get away with this, we will cease to live in a democracy and begin to live in an oligarchy, ruled by the few, the unelected judges. There is precedent for Presidential authority, or gubernatorial authority, to override that of judges. When the US Supreme Court handed down a ruling President Andrew Jackson disagreed with, he said, "John Marshall has made the decision. Let him try to enforce it." He ignored the ruling. Yet democracy continued to function. I would never argue that we ought to ignore everytime a judge speaks, but the judge's gavel is not the final word and these rulings lately have grown increasingly loopy. For example, the US Supreme Court struck down state laws allowing the death penalty for minors (anyone want to argue this is a breach of states rights?) and they did it by appealing to the laws of other countries. It's about time President Bush, Congress, the governors and legislatures of these states where things like this come up stop the judges cold in their tracks, demand that they rule based on United States law, not some other country's, and stop legislating from the bench. Only then can we go back to having a government made up of three branches, instead of one.