The Gavin Newsome option for Terri Schiavo
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction... This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. (Deut.30:15,19)Where is Jeb Bush? Gavin Newsome, San Francisco's mayor, when he decided that gays were being denied their constitutional right to marry, said, "The heck with the law" and, in his capacity as an executive, committed an act of civil disobedience. Why isn't Jeb Bush doing the same? Why isn't he bravely committing the civilly disobedient act of removing Terri Schiavo bodily from the hospital, and bringing her to a place where she will be fed and hydrated? Given that he has the power to do so, doesn't he have the moral obligation to do so, regardless of the consequences? And just as Gavin Newsome knew that nothing bad would really happen to him for his act of civil disobedience, doesn't Jeb Bush know the same? This is his moment to be great. It's not too late. Terri can still manage for a few more days. So if you think this is an important idea, please promulgate it across the blogosphere as quickly as you can. My statcounter shows that my readership is limited, but those of you who have greater access, please do what you can to get this message out. UPDATE: If Jeb Bush acts, it may be the important opening salvo in what I'm beginning to perceive as something akin to a civil war against activist judges (about whom I've blogged here, here, here and here). Mark R. Levin, at NRO's corner, has an excellent point regarding the legislative/judicial tensions swirling around Terri's death, and I post it here in its entirety:
I see this more as a struggle between the elected branches and the judiciary. The Florida legislature and Governor Jeb Bush did, in fact, attempt to intervene in the Schiavo case a few years back, and prevent the removal of her feeding tube. But the Florida Supreme Court ruled, among other things, that the governor had no such power. Yesterday, Florida Superior Court Judge Greer, in essence, said the same about congressional authority. He quickly dismissed the relevance of the House subpoenas with this statement: "I have had no cogent reason why the committee should intervene." The state judge, therefore, contended that the House had to convince him of the legitimacy of its subpoena to compel witnesses to appear so it can conduct hearings. I've heard nothing from academia about this stunning judicial assertion. As the courts continue to usurp the policy- and law-making power of the elected branches, and offend an ever-growing number of Americans and their representatives, we can expect the tension between the elected branches and the judiciary to grow. The judges have no one to blame but themselves. In the eyes of many, they have pursued a course that delegitimizes their institution and calls into question their motives. And while the courts set themselves up as the final arbiters of all conflicts between themselves and the other branches, at least the House, in this first test of constitutional wills, does not appear ready to surrender. After all, if it won't protect its own constitutional prerogatives, who will? The more the House resists judicial usurpation, the more unhinged its critics in academia and the mainstream media will become -- accusing it of politicizing the independent judiciary, intimidating judges, and so forth. The reason for this is straightforward: the judiciary is the means by which the Left has been most successful in recent decades in imposing its agenda on society. They've gone to extraordinary lengths to obstruct President Bush's judicial nominations, including the unconstitutional use of filibusters in the Senate, and they will be equally zealous in the House.