I like to cross enemy lines every now and then and see what the other side is up to.
At the Weekly Standard they, like everyone else, are chiming in on the Schaivo case. Their stance is predictable.
More below the fold.
A snippet of one article at the WS:
What to make of this, the latest in a string of judicial decrees that run contrary to the will of the representative branch? Here's one reaction that arrived in my email account an hour after the 11th Circuit chose to ignore Congress:
We are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of lawyers. It doesn't matter how carefully we frame a law. It doesn't matter what sort of initiative the voters pass. The elite judges do whatever they want. . . .
Lest you think I'm some sort of ignorant red-neck, I have a Ph.D. in History from the University of California. I am deeply troubled by the rise of the rogue courts. Unless
there is radical change--revolutionary change--we are doomed.
I don't share my correspondent's pessimism, but I think his anger is very widespread and fuels not only the strong support for Senator Frist's decision to break the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees, but also a backlash against any Republican who sides with the Democrats on the coming rules change vote.
Tricked-up public opinion polls on the Schiavo case have allowed some commentators to pretend that Congress stumbled politically when it passed the law benefiting Terri's parents. Absurd. It was the right thing to do, and the focus on the facts of the case daily adds to the number of people who know that to be true.
At the same time, the anti-religion bias and rhetoric of the hard left specifically have leapt into public view again, as ordinary people supporting the parents find themselves denounced as fanatics and zealots. Liberal blogger and University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole went so far as to declare that "President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood model."
This statement earned Cole a place on the Ward Churchill All-Stars and elicited from Professor James Q. Wilson the response that Cole's conclusion "of course is pure nonsense. It is hard to believe that a professor at a major university can utter such silliness, but if you want to hear silliness, sometimes you have to go to a university to hear it."
Whenever the collective attention of the country turns to one drama, all sorts of unexpected revelations occur. In this case, we see confirmed two longstanding assumptions of the center-right: Courts will often wrongly defy Congress and the president; and a large section of the left has nothing but contempt for people of faith.
(emphasis is mine)
I responded to the editor:
It isn't people of faith that liberals and democrats "hate". It's people who disguise their real intentions behind a facade of faith. Why is there no mention in your article of the law Gov. Bush signed in Texas which allows hospitals to "pull the plug" on those who can no longer afford to pay? And why do you think that having judges sitting on the bench that can and will be swayed by our govt. is a good idea? Remember those ever important "checks and balances" that our founding fathers thought were a good idea?