Yeah, everyone has a duty to accept injustice, all the time.
So now they blame the judicial system who are just doing their job of interpreting the laws as written.
And courts interpret laws infallibly, all the time.
It is unfortunate that society thinks they have to take issues all the way to the Supreme Courts and still cannot accept the laws of the land.
Actually, you're right, it is unfortunate that the public sees the judiciary as the only option, and the Supreme Court as the last word, rather than seeing the executive and legislature as co-equal branches.
It is not the job of the judiciary to appease people with agendas,
No but it is their job to serve justice. Violating Terri Schiavo's right to life does not, any way you slice it. If you like let me just point to the 14th amendment. No judge can rationally explain why her 14th amendment rights are not being violated in this case.
However it is easy to point out a handful of rulings from various Circuits and assume the entire process is corrupt
True, and it's easier when there's an entire pattern rather than a random handful.
This court has ruled on individual rights as opposed to states rights.
My, what a totally NOT superficial summary of this case! You should have an opinion column.
The court has "ruled on" "individual rights"? yes, I suppose that's true. They have ruled that Terri Schiavo, the individual, lacks the right to life, and meanwhile, Michael Schiavo, a different individual, has the right to make her dead if he wants.
That what you meant?
And generally the court will always favor the individual right and not the right of the collective.
except in this case, where the "collective" is deciding that an individual should die.
Agree or disagree, someone will always be upset with a ruling and that is the way it always will be.
Brilliant observation, really. But this gets us nowhere. You're right that someone will always be upset with a ruling. And? someone was upset with the Dred Scott decision. Someone was upset with the Bush v. Gore decision. Someone was upset with their decision overturning laws against flag-burning. and so it goes. None of this tells us anything about whether any of those respective decisions were right or wrong, just or unjust.
Nor does it refute the point of the author above, which is that the executive branch is co-equal with the judicial branch, not subservient to it.
The pressure placed upon the Judiciary has to be immense and I wouldn't want the job. The Judiciary is not a popularity contest.
Actually it kinda is. Except, usually to win this contest you don't (generally) have to be "popular" among the American public, but rather, among the members of the ABA and various left-wing opinion leaders and Congressmen.
Look at Bush's recent appointees... not popular among lefties and ABA types, therefore Boxer & friends are blocking them.
Unless, of course, the majority in the legislature too asserts its power.
Perhaps if the Congress would show some gonads and decisively address these kind of issues, rather than worrying about re-election and special interest groups, the judiciary would not be placed in such a position of importance. But it is exactly the failure of congress that precipitates the alleged abuses by the courts.
And in this case I say the words "alleged abuses" because it appears that over 60% of the people in America agree with the courts and their numerous reviews and decisions in this case. So it looks like the majority believe that all has been done, the medical reviews have been re-reviewed numerous times, the patient has not shown improvement, and she indicated to her husband that she would not want to live in this condition.
If there has been any abuse of Terri, it has been by the lawyers who have forced her to continue her life for 15 years despite her wishes, and dispite no improvement in her condition even after treatment early in her diagnosis.
I understand the agony of losing a loved one and wanting to hold on. But holding on against her wishes is selfish.