Religionists Reenact Recount

The Terri Schiavo case is the 2000 recount of the religious right.

The Schiavo fiasco remains fertile blogging ground. Yesterday, I discussed a Michelle Malkin column at length and took Malkin to task for implicitly supporting the unconstitutional shenanigans of the religious right. Readers who doubt me or didn't see this after their own reading of the column can check out this post, in which she approvingly quotes from a column in which Ann Coulter reaches a new low: "So how about a Republican governor's sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida?"

That Ann Coulter column is a doozy and should be read in full. Here are a few quotes:

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: (1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard); (2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms); and (3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor's sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

So if the Republicans are supposed to start acting just like Democrats, on what basis is Coulter such a fervent Republican? Or does Coulter hold that such action would be fundamentally different and might be legal? And might she have managed to argue that it conforms to the way the Founding Fathers organized our government? Let's see for ourselves.

First, Coulter evades the fact that the Schiavo case has already undergone due process. This allows her to equate Jeb Bush calling up the National Guard to save her life with Eisenhower's use of the military to enforce desegregation of the public schools in Arkansas.

None of these exercises of military force [cited in the above excerpt] has gone down in history as a noble moment, but that's because of the underlying purpose of the force, not the fact that force was used.

To the contrary, what has gone down in history as a glorious moment for the republic was when President Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) called out military force of his own. In response to Gov. Faubus' abuse of the National Guard, Eisenhower simultaneously revoked Faubus' control of the National Guard and ordered the 101st Airborne Division to escort black students to school.

As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?

And then, in case you don't buy this, she later basically says, "Oh, to Hell with separation of powers. He should do it anyway."

President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived.

If Gov. Jeb Bush doesn't say something similar to the Florida courts that have ordered Terri Schiavo to die, he'll be the second Republican governor disgraced by the illiterate ramblings of a state judiciary. [Update: Details are sketchy, but it may be that Jeb Bush basically did do this, by ordering state law enforcement to seize Terri Schiavo.]

She conveniently forgot to add to that last the "illiterate ramblings" of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals as well as of the Supreme Court of the United States (which "illiterately rambled" about this same case no less than five times). So we survived the foolishness of Andrew Jackson. How many more similar episodes can we survive as a country? Ann Coulter is OK with a nation of men and not laws on a case-by-case basis, but someone needs to explain to her that law doesn't work if it is not applied consistently. So no. Coulter has no problem using the same tactics she despises Democrats for using and apparently doesn't really care whether such tactics might be inconsistent with our form of government.

I also find interesting how Ann Coulter's regard for the court system has changed so much over the past five years. In 2000, she had this to say about the Florida recount battle:

In "interpreting" the Florida election code so as to impose a 19-day deadline where the actual law had required a seven-day deadline, the kangaroo court may as well have declared war on Canada. And the real Supreme Court most likely would have issued a similar ruling: "As a general rule, this court defers to a state court's interpretation" of the law -- but not if the state court declares war on Canada. See, e.g., the Constitution.

Most amusingly, the U.S. Supreme Court professed confusion over the SCOFLA's (Supreme Court of Florida) ruling -- the one it went ahead and vacated just to be on the safe side. Not to put too fine a point on it, but these guys understand the Law of Perpetuities. Turgidity is their life's work. But they didn't understand the SCOFLA's opinion? Oh, OK.

While claiming total befuddlement, the Supreme Court indicated that it sure hoped the court hadn't ignored the Constitution and federal law! This is how parents discipline small children: I sure hope no one's reading under her covers after bedtime! The face-saving directive was clear to all but the willfully blind.

Of course, the SCOFLA found the meaning of the word "seven" to be an impenetrable mystery, so there's no assurance that subtlety will work with these guys. But there is one entity for whom we can be pretty sure the Supreme Court's ruling will not be a devilish puzzle -- the Florida Legislature.

As the Supreme Court reminded the world, the Constitution provides that states "shall appoint" presidential electors "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct." So knock yourself out in Seminole County. Exclude votes from the military, taxpayers, all registered Republicans. The Florida Legislature has the last word.

I never imagined I would be as thankful for Bill Clinton as I am at this moment (or ever, for that matter), but thank goodness he refrained from pulling an Andrew Jackson! The recount did not occur in Florida against the ruling of the Supreme Court. Jeb Bush didn't have to send in the National Guard to stop a recount. And Bill Clinton didn't make the recount happen anyway by sending in the army. Thank you, Bill Clinton, for behaving properly as the Chief Executive after that decision. And shame on you, Ann Coulter, for your hypocrisy! You say in your first column that, " Liberals' newfound respect for 'federalism' is completely disingenuous." Well, what is your "fair weather" respect for federalism to be called? I don't know, but it is anything but "respect for federalism."

Be careful what you wish for. If Presidents start ignoring the Supreme Court, a President you don't particularly care for might feel free to ignore a ruling you happen to agree with. And for that matter, the Supreme Court will be rendered moot if Presidents can pick and choose which rulings to enforce in any event. Just as the time to reform voting procedures in Florida was after the election, so, unfortunately, is the time to reform Florida's custody law after Terri Schiavo dies. We have to accept rulings we disagree with from time to time because lawlessness would be far worse. (By the way, it is only in a lawful, peaceful society that someone like Schiavo can survive at all. So this attack upon our nation's foundation is doubly hypocritical.)

The Terri Schiavo case is the 2000 recount of the religious right. In 2000, Al Gore and the Democrats attempted to misuse the judicial branch to overturn an election. In 2005, the religious right is trying to misuse the executive and legislative branches to overturn a legal decision that has been effectively upheld by the very court the Republicans were thankful for in 2000. In the 2000 case and in this one (so far), a political faction lusting after power has been thwarted by the foresight of our Founding Fathers, who split the power of our government into three competing branches. Our government was designed to get in its own way for a very good reason: to prevent any one man from being able to accumulate (and abuse) too much power. A crucial part of how this works is that those in positions of power act responsibly, especially in the executive branch -- the one that enforces the law.

Thanks to Bill Clinton's acceptance of the SCOTUS ruling on the 2000 election, we now have the able leadership of George W. Bush in the war we find ourselves fighting today. And if President Bush is the patriot I think he is, he will enforce the decision rendered by the courts in this matter and, in doing so, will protect our nation's precious respect for the law.

-- CAV

Updates

3-25-05: (1) Clarified which Bush Coulter wants calling in the 'Guard. (2) Corrected wording of two sentences. (3) Fixed a typo. Hat tip to Adrian Hester.
3-26-05: Linked to next post.