I've been pushing the GOP as the “Party of Sleaze” meme for some time. Who would have thunk that David Brooks of all people would be the one to give this idea a catchy name: not merely the Masters of Sleaze, but “sleazo-cons”.
Sleazo-cons. Can't top that.
Early this morning, Judge Whittemore denied Theresa Schiavo's parents' motion for a TRO. Here is Michael Schiavo's Brief in Opposition to the Motion for an Injunction. Earlier I linked to the Schiavo complaint.
Update: I've now read Judge Whitmore's careful opinion. My Schiavo predictions last night were right on target, except that the judge takes an even stronger stance: he pretty much finds all five counts to be without merit.
Update 2: If these medical facts are accurate, they paint a compelling picture.
Update 3 (3/23): Here's a contrary medical analysis of the above.
I am not a federal courts scholar, although I'm interested enough in related issues to at least keep an eye on the subject. Ditto for federalism. And I've had the advantage of following some pretty high-powered exchanges on various email lists devoted to constitutional law. So here are some partly-informed thoughts, first on the constitutionality of the Schiavo bill, Public Law No: 109-3 (full text below), and second on what the federal court is likely to do with the case. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you may find some of my views surprising. (Note: Before reading further, you might wish to go visit the comprehensive factual account of the progress of the Schiavo case at Abstract Appeal.)
As I blogged on Sunday, my first somewhat knee-jerk reaction was that the Schiavo bill was incompatible with the Republican vision of strong federalism, a view that generally argues in principle (if so rarely in practice) for limited Congressional power over traditionally state domains of regulation, and which has enthusiastically greeted a set of Supreme Court decisions that restrict Congress's commerce clause power. I still think that's true. And it's a deserved shot, not a cheap one.
But so it's easy to point at others' hypocrisy, and only a little helpful at best. What about if the Schiavo Bill is held up to the view of federalism I hold? Does it pass muster? I think, at the end of the day, it does – although as I'll explain below I think, amazingly, the court will not actually need to address this question.
JURIST – Paper Chase: Gitmo tapes 'as explosive as anything from Abu Ghraib': A former lawyer for Australian terror suspect David Hicks [defense advocacy website] told a major law conference in Australia Monday that US military videotapes from the terror detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be “as explosive as anything from Abu Ghraib” if they were ever released. In his address to LawAsia Downunder 2005 [conference website] Stephen Kenny said that there are some 500 hours of video of actions by the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) at the camp who were responsible for prisoner control, and that the ACLU was pressing for release of the tapes …
“There’s reason to suspect that our 2004 election was stolen.”
A House Administration Committee field hearing will be held today in Columbus, Ohio to look into the allegation that there is something odd about Ohio's numbers. Although whether a Republican-chaired committee will give the matter a fair hearing, which would require breaking through the obstructionist tactics of a very partisan Republican Ohio Secretary of State, remains a question mark.
And the vote process in Ohio needs a real investigation.
So much one could say about the entire Schiavo mess — How can the GOP support this anti-federalist measure without any hint of shame? How can the same GOP that says federal power should be seen through he lens of a limited Commerce Clause and shrunken 14th Amendment claim that Congress has the power to act here? How can anyone care so much more about the feeding tube in a person with a liquefied cerebral cortex than about the feeding of hungry children both at home and abroad? And what about all the people who die for lack of medical care? Is the Schiavo bill a bill of attainder? Does the insertion of the Congress into an ongoing judicial matter violate separation of powers? — but other people are asking, or will ask, all these questions.
So here's my own addition to the pile: Why didn't the Senate democrats take advantage of this bill to add a rider to it? Say, a requirement that the CIA not use any methods of torture abroad that would be cruel and unusual punishment at home? Or anything else that ought, in principle, to be uncontroversial but would cause Rovian heartburn? Why just roll over without charging a price for quick action?
Recent Bluessky Posts
Jotwell Blenderlaw