AP: The White House said Monday that an extraordinary law allowing a federal court to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case was narrowly tailored and not intended as a precedent for Congress to step into battles over the fate of seriously disabled or terminally ill patients.
It's absurd to talk about precedent in a legislative act--presumably the bill was an expression of the sense of this Congress. But how can you argue that it does not set a legal precedent, no matter how "narrowly tailored" it was? I'm far from a legal scholar, so someone please explain to me what I've missed here: what now prevents a future where a lower court can stay the execution of a Supreme Court ruling on the grounds that a single legislator intends to offer just such a bill?
I've been saying for a quarter century now that it was time for the Right to shut up and govern. That was apparently nothing more than naïveté on my part. The Right is either a whole lot smarter or even more insane than I've credited them for. Maybe both. This is a bunch which now baldly admits it cannot govern, and simply intends to hold power and enforce its will. If this is not a tipping point then we will have none until everything is smoke and ashes. I'm a Red State boy; I can tell you those polls which say Americans want the government's nose out of their personal business are on the money. There's no such thing as principled conservativism left; if there still exists such a thing as principled conservatives it's time they sign on for the fight.