|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 4, 2005 / 24 Adar II, 5765 One nation under law By Jeff Jacoby
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The court-ordered death of Terri Schiavo generated an intensely polarized debate about the sanctity and quality of life, and it will be a long time before the passions aroused by her case come to rest. Virtually everything about this tragedy was heatedly fought over: The extent of her brain damage. The right of her husband to decide her fate. The intervention by Congress and the president. The pain — or painlessness — of dying from dehydration. The pro-euthanasia activism of Michael Schiavo's lawyer. The ''culture of life" invoked by President Bush. Even the wording of opinion polls and the authorship of a political memo.
But amid all the anger and anguish, one crucial fact was never in doubt: Terri Schiavo's fate would be determined lawfully. The courts would decide whether her feeding tube should be reconnected, and their decision, whatever it finally was, would be obeyed. At one point Governor Jeb Bush reportedly sent a team of Florida law enforcement agents to seize the dying woman and move her to a hospital. But when the local police made it clear they would enforce the judge's order, the state troopers peacefully retreated.
It may seem an obvious thing that legal disputes — even those that become bitter causes celebres — get settled in court. But in an era when we hear endless talk of a culture war and ''two Americas" and how a widening gulf is tearing us apart, there's a measure of reassurance in knowing that even when it comes to our most vehement public controversies, combatants who may agree on nothing else agree they will live by the law.
Deference to the legal process has nothing to do with admiration or even respect for judges. Innumerable Americans are appalled by the judiciary, and their disdain didn't start with the Schiavo case. High on the bestsellers lists at the moment is Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America by Mark R. Levin, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.). ''The biggest myth about judges," it begins, ''is that they're somehow imbued with greater insight, wisdom, and vision than the rest of us."
In the current Weekly Standard, William Kristol sarcastically thanks the US Supreme Court for its recent decision saving the life of Christopher Simmons, the youthful sadist who murdered Shirley Crook for the fun of it in 1993. In seven paragraphs of well-tempered fury, Kristol contrasts the judicial sensitivity to ''evolving standards of decency" that spared Simmons from the death penalty because of his age with the absence of any such sensitivity when it came to Terri Schiavo. ''Perhaps it is time," he concludes, ''to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves."
Levin and Kristol are conservatives, but liberals have had their share of contempt for the courts as well. Just recollect the storm over Bush v. Gore.
Yet for all the outrage that judicial decisions can provoke, no one seriously advises disregarding court orders or taking legal battles to the streets. Though Levin refers repeatedly to the ''tyranny" of federal judges, his proposals for resisting them are lawful ones like impeachment and legislated limits on jurisdiction. When Kristol calls for an uprising, he means that Bush should nominate conservative judges and that there should be ''a serious national debate on the distinction between judicial independence and judicial arrogance."
This acquiescence in the legitimate authority of judges to settle conflicts wasn't something Americans could always take for granted. In 1832, the Supreme Court ruled that states had no power over Indian tribes and that Georgia's attempt to take over the lands of the Cherokee Nation were therefore, as Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Worcester v. Georgia put it, ''repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States."
But President Andrew Jackson was determined to see the Cherokee driven out and declared the ruling a dead letter. ''John Marshall has made his decision," Jackson reportedly said. ''Now let him enforce it."
But courts — even supreme courts — cannot enforce their decisions. The Cherokee were dispossessed, stripped of their belongings, and sent on a 1,200-mile forced march that left thousands dead from hunger and exhaustion. Their ''Trail of Tears" is more than just a monument to the devastation of a people. It is also a reminder of what can happen when the rule of law is tossed aside.
A common commitment to resolve disputes through law is no guarantee against travesties of justice. Terri Schiavo's public death was tragic and grotesque, and the debate it launched is far from over. Oh, yes, the culture war goes on. But civil society does, too. Whatever else may divide us, we remain one nation under law.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here. © 2005, Boston Globe |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
