If justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seem surly today it’s because they have just been tossed a hot POLITICAL potato — the Terri Schiavo case which has turned into a political skirmish that could end in the Republican party emerging with a lot less political support than what it had before it began.
The event: an appeals court in Atlanta gave thumbs down on Terri Schiavo’s parents’ attempt to get their daughter’s feeding tube reinserted after a judge (now reviled and demonized but before his decision called independent) turned down their pleas.
Here’s the crux of the news report:
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. – Their options dwindling after losing two consecutive appeals in federal court, Terri Schiavo’s parents vowed Wednesday to take their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court (news – web sites) as their brain-damaged daughter began her fifth full day without a feeding tube.
In a 2-1 ruling early Wednesday, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said the parents, who have battled with their son-in-law for years over the woman’s fate, “failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims” that Terri’s feeding tube should be reinserted immediately.
“There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo,” the ruling by Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull said. “We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law.
“Law?” But according to GOP Senator Rick Santorium, Congress passed a law and the judges must go through the formalities of following Congress’s wishes. Isn’t that how our system is set up? See our post below if you forgot.
You can’t say that the Republican Party is marching in lockstep loyalty on this issue: there are some GOPers who are enormously concerned over not just the political implications but the philosophical implications of what two of their party’s two top leaders — Majority Leader Tom DeLay and President George Bush — have done. You can see this on blogs (go through posts on our post chain below) but, more importantly, among the ranks of GOP conservatives, a development now documented by the New York Times. Here are a few excerpts:
“This is a clash between the social conservatives and the process conservatives, and I would count myself a process conservative,” said David Davenport of the Hoover Institute, a conservative research organization. “When a case like this has been heard by 19 judges in six courts and it’s been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the process has worked – even if it hasn’t given the result that the social conservatives want. For Congress to step in really is a violation of federalism.”
Stephen Moore, a conservative advocate who is president of the Free Enterprise Fund, said: “I don’t normally like to see the federal government intervening in a situation like this, which I think should be resolved ultimately by the family: I think states’ rights should take precedence over federal intervention. A lot of conservatives are really struggling with this case.”
And those are just the think-tankers. The views of some elected officials are less diplomatic:
Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, the sole Republican to oppose the Schiavo bill in a voice vote in the Senate, said: “This senator has learned from many years you’ve got to separate your own emotions from the duty to support the Constitution of this country. These are fundamental principles of federalism.”
“It looks as if it’s a wholly Republican exercise,” Mr. Warner said, “but in the ranks of the Republican Party, there is not a unanimous view that Congress should be taking this step.”
And:
“My party is demonstrating that they are for states’ rights unless they don’t like what states are doing,” said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. “This couldn’t be a more classic case of a state responsibility.”
“This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy,” Mr. Shays said. “There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them.”
The genie is now out of the bottle: this wing of the GOP is at variance with process conservatives and many libertarians — and is defining the party as the party of theocracy.
There are many in the center who are not interested in voting for a party of theocracy. If they feel deeply against it, they’ll vote Democratic. If they are less assertive, they’ll just stay home.
These folks are unlikely to vote for the GOP as an alternative to Democrats perceived as a bit too far to the left since the GOP is discarding its image as a party safer for centrists. The reason: those who press this issue are convinced their definitions are the only definitions because they come from a higher source and they are attuned more than their opponents to what that higher source is. The Times again:
“There’s a larger issue in play,” and Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, “and that is the whole issue of the definition of life. The issue of when is it a life is a broader issue than just a state defining that. I don’t think we can have 50 different definitions of life.”
That’s right: it’s his definition of life. He knows.
The bottom line question: why is the GOP split?
It’s because some GOP conservatives believe certain principles must be as enduring as our form of government — that they are not to be twisted or misleadingly interpreted in a quest to shore up a potent constituency.
This kind of country before party is what occasionally comes to the forefront in both parties. It happened when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court and his plan went down in flames. It happened in 1974 when Republicans who had been balking decided it was time for Richard Nixon to resign due to Watergate and Barry Goldwater stepped forward. It happened during the Clinton impeachment hearings when some Democrats lambasted Clinton for his behavior and perjured testimony, even though many Democrats tried to pooh-pooh it.
Sometimes it isn’t about a political game where people wrap themselves in what they claim are principles but are attempts to change the country’s political values either pro-actively or by the default of other citizens’ apathy. Sometimes it is truly about enduring principles that have kept the U.S. strong as a democracy, with checks, balances and values that don’t change just because one party or another has the votes and power.
PREDICTION: If it fails in the Supreme Court, Gov. Jeb Bush and Co may see if there is something they can do there…but that will be at their peril: a poll shows Floridians do not want to see the tube removed.
Question: our government was set up to provide checks to prevent Tyranny of the Majority. Given national and now Florida polls, are we seeing Tyranny of the Minority here?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.