My Opinion, For Whatever It's Worth
I'm having a similar reaction as the Amy of "Amy's Humble Musings" (March 31 entry) regarding the political implications of the Schiavo case. I had some major misgivings last November about voting Republican, but did anyway. It's a huge question with huge implications: as Christians, should we vote principle or pragmatics? The problem is that now with the judicial branch clearly "in charge" of the nation, pragmatics (in my view) is beginning to dictate voting by principle.
Sounds complicated, but it's not, really. I voted Republican before because if I didn't, it would give more power to the Democrats. Even though I didn't feel the Republican party was sufficiently pro-life or constitutionally-minded, more good would come from keeping the Democrats out of power than if I voted for a Constitution Party candidate based on principle. That's pragmatic. But now, keeping Democrats out of power doesn't seem like it carries as much benefit as it used to, with the courts dominating both of the other branches of government. It seems that the greater benefit will come from abandoning both parties in search of something closer to what the founding fathers of our nation had in mind, even if it means "wasting" my vote.
I'm not an expert in politics. I know it's something most people have very strong feelings about. But my cynicism regarding the whole process as it stands is deepening.
Sounds complicated, but it's not, really. I voted Republican before because if I didn't, it would give more power to the Democrats. Even though I didn't feel the Republican party was sufficiently pro-life or constitutionally-minded, more good would come from keeping the Democrats out of power than if I voted for a Constitution Party candidate based on principle. That's pragmatic. But now, keeping Democrats out of power doesn't seem like it carries as much benefit as it used to, with the courts dominating both of the other branches of government. It seems that the greater benefit will come from abandoning both parties in search of something closer to what the founding fathers of our nation had in mind, even if it means "wasting" my vote.
I'm not an expert in politics. I know it's something most people have very strong feelings about. But my cynicism regarding the whole process as it stands is deepening.
3 Comments:
Here's another dilemma to consider: A Fox News poll taken after Terri Schiavo's death dealt with political fallout for each of the major parties. The results were mind boggling to me. A much higher percentage (37%)thought that there would be negative consequences for Republicans who supported 12th hour legislative attempts to rescue Terri, compared with the percentage (24%) who thought there would be negative consequences for Democrats who opposed such intervention attempts. I know there is a lack of respect for life--human, not animal--in America, but I honestly thought things might be turning around. The results of this poll have me wondering if that's true. In this same poll, another 16% thought there would be no effect on either party. How important is it, then, for pro-life voters to continue to support those Republicans who voted in favor of the bill to save Terri Schiavo? Worthy of some careful thought.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the 12th hour legislative efforts to save Terri were in addition to that efforts to be the judicial branch. I would disagree with Amey's statement that the courts rule the other two branches and say it is more likely that they were interpreting the law based on what actual evidence Mike and her parents brought to bear.
When the legislative branch creates a law fashioned with the intentions of affecting a single specific person, this is precisely what they are doing: ruling the judicial branch. In this case, the judicial branch simply kept them in check, so it's difficult to understand hor you think this is wrong?
It is my understanding that the only court that actually heard any specific evidence in the case was Judge Greer's court. The other courts were not agreeing necessarily with Greer's verdict, but simply stating they found no procedural wrongdoing in the court case. It was Congress' and the President's intention to "check" the courts by shifting this case to the federal courts and bringing all the evidence back out again for a brand new trial. Obviously, this was not done, so I believe that the courts are out of line for not following the directive of both legislative and executive branches. I also feel that the President had a duty to enforce this legislation, but he did not.
In the political realm, the US Congress is probably the least to blame for the whole mess, and I'm glad they were able to come together to make this decision. Getting over 2/3 of the vote on this bill was quite a feat. Now if only they could do that again to override the filibusters regarding the pro-life judicial nominees.
I know there are those who think that this case shouldn't have even been on the Congress "radar" (government intervention and all that), but government has been involved all along. Courts are a part of the government as well. And protecting life is one of the few things the federal government IS constitutionally required to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home