Deep Thoughts

In light of the Schiavo case I have been thinking a lot about how our government functions. Currently I am beginning to be very wary of the complete Republican controlled government. Primarily because they are beginning to talk with a little to much bluster and threat for a party. And it is just a party. The funny this about the parties is, when something goes their way they defend the system, when it doesn't they claim it's broken. The bad news is, the Republicans may try to change it while they have the power.

Now, is the system broken? Of course, it's called the Democratic and Republican parties. Yes, isn't that wonderful? We're controlled by two parties who are controlled by billions of dollars of campaign money (which is given in return for implied support for whatever the donors might need). How do we know they get all this money? Perhaps because the last Presidential and Congressional campaign spent over a billion (or was it billions?) this year. Now if you thought money didn't talk before I'd suggest waking up and listening. I am rather impressed that somehow the Europeans got money out of elections to an extent, too bad we won't ever be able to do that. For my view limiting the amount of money that can be spent on a campaign in any way is no longer a limit of free speech simply because the vast majority of Americans don't have the money to donate like that and therefore their voices weigh less. That's not equality. If the rich guy has more power then the poor or middle class guy then we're closing fast in on an oligarchy. However those who donate (and some who follow their general theory) maintain that spending money = free speech. Pretty sure the Founding Fathers would disagree. I digress though (indeed this whole paragraph is digression).

The arguement by Republicans is that the judicial system stepped out of line. Primarily the US Federal Court system. I am a little confused on how the stepped out of line. Someone might have to show me where in the Constitution the US Congress can order a Federal Court to take up a case. As far as I understood it the courts had the right to reject a case on grounds that it is inappropriate for their jurisdiction. How that is overstepping their bounds I am unsure. Tom Delay sure thinks so but hey when he runs for President in 2008 would be any wonder that he used a woman's death to strengthen his name with Christian Conservatives? Now for general legal wonders the Schiavo case is amazing (to the Europeans unbelieavable). First of all it went through several repeated Florida courts all whom supported the current law which gives the legal gaurdian control of the person they are legal gaurdian of. In these cases the parents were unable to prove the Terry Schiavo was in a non-vegatative state. Repeatedly. Not once, not twice, but many times. Then unable to legally keep her alive they attempted to circumvent the system. Now, their love for their daughter is fantastic but now they are suddenly endangering everyone who has ever created a Living Will or who otherwise would trust their legal gaurdian to complete their final wishes by trying to break set legal precedent. Once you break a law it's toast legally because every lawyer who has a client wishing to circumvent can use that precedent to overturn. Essentially legal gaurdians would have no power and anything they wished to do would be stuck in the courts or Congress. Suddenly your personal decisions would be out of your hands. Plus more power to the government. Worse this is an issue of morality and they are ruling on it. Now on a lot of things relating to morality if they are minor I don't mind if the gov't butts in for the general public health but on something like this I am wary. Why change something that works fine?

So yea, I think the Republicans are dangerously close to overstepping Congress's bounds. They are attempting to tip the balance of power much more massively in their favor. Right now perhaps the courts do overstep their bounds with some rulings. How you can say they they the courts are overstepping their bounds though when they don't rule anything? They turned down the case!

Right. Oh and if you were wondering what Europe thinks, well they think we're nuts (not news). Seems they have come to accept that people die. Frankly while I think Europeans are nuts (and the French are a lost cause altogether) I do agree that they handle death much more dignified then we do. It's almost that they are not afraid to die when we are. Maybe we're more attached to our material world and all the useless wealth it comes with.

So yea, this has been a late night ramble by yours truly. Discuss, tear apart, whatever. There are probably inconsistencies, that's what happens when I write late at night.