PhotoDude.com

What does Terry Schiavo have to do with Interstate Commerce, anyway?

I agree, this is an issue that tends to arouse violent emotions. My reaction is the same when I hear that people are fighting to starve and dehydrate a woman to death on the strength of nothing more than an assumption by a fellow who has a monetary interest in her decease. I am glad someone has the courage to call this fellow on the carpet for the scumbag he is.

If Terri had left something in writing as you are planning to do, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It wouldn’t have even gone anywhere in Florida state courts, let alone the state or national legislature. It isn’t a question of whether someone’s will is going to be imposed on her. The question is whether it will be the will of her parents, who want her to live, or her husband, who wants her to die. It’s a question of whether the people’s represntatives will allow an unelected official to set a very, very bad precedent: “If in the absence of any clear written intent, just one of your family members claims you would rather be dead, then so long, Charlie.”

You can bet a lot of elderly and handicapped people who love life are following this case with intense interest. I hope the standard will not drop so far that all it takes is the word of one family member who can’t be burdened with our existence any longer, and they pull the plug on you and let you literally shrivel up and die.

It is very shortsighted and simplistic to claim that this is just about one person. Try to see past your bias and imagine that just maybe there is a moral concern here. Just maybe DeLay and the people who elected him really are concerned about this precedent. Just maybe there are people who have a very personal vested interest in the outcome.

I would also be interested to know whether you exhibited the same amount of concern for state’s rights when Roe v. Wade was handed down. Because of course judges can do no wrong, but elected representatives are merely the plaything of the morally outmoded public and cannot be trusted under any circumstances, right?

“If Terri had left something in writing as you are planning to do, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”

Agreed. And this is the greatest lesson each and every one of us can take from this tragedy. Do a Google search for ”[Your State] Living Will.” You’ll find a host of low priced services that will set you up, and you’ll likely also find a PDF sample Living Will for your state that you can retype for yourself. At least in Georgia, you don’t need a lawyer, and even a notary public isn’t legally required (though it is recommended). All you need is the proper verbage and two witnesses.

By week’s end, Susan and I will have revised and binding Living Wills.

“It is very shortsighted and simplistic to claim that this is just about one person. Try to see past your bias and imagine that just maybe there is a moral concern here.”

If this were a moral concern that was meant to resolve a painful issue for all of us, it would not be named “A act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.” It’s not “shortsighted and simplistic to claim that this is just about one person,” it literally is about one person, by the name of the bill.

In other words, should you need such “protection” from Congress, or any of the other 290 million people in this country, Congress will have to reconvene in a special session to create a bill with your name on it. The one they made last night was just for Terri. Period.

If this was about a moral issue, and not one individual, where was Congress last week when baby Sun Hudson was unplugged? Based on a Texas law signed by George Bush? Why did Congress only create protection for Terri, deliberately, by name, but not Sun? Could it be because you’ve never heard of Sun Hudson (or the dozens of other “no names” in similar circumstances), yet Terri Schiavo is a household name enabling quick and easy political hay-making?

This law “protects” one person, and does so because Congress did not like the result of seven years of state court adjudication by 19 judges. That’s not my subjective opinion on a heated matter. That’s semantic legal fact. And that’s where I come down on this. Congress has no authority, and is in fact trampling all over the concept of State’s Rights.

If we are not to have State’s Rights or a judiciary system that will not be second guessed by whatever party controls Congress, then let’s just forget that silly Constitution, and pass laws for each individual as the situatino arises. No need to worry about the guarantee the Constritution gives us of “equal protection” then.

Because, you see, Congress has created a law to give special protection to one person. And that’s illegal. Unconsitutional. It violates “equal protection,” because you and I don’t get that protection … until Congress holds a special session in our name.

And they’d hold one for you, if you really needed it, wouldn’t they? Sure they would. Just like they did for baby Sun Hudson…

This is a Day of Infamy if there ever was one. Our government just established itself as a tyranny, in the name of a woman on a feeding tube in Florida. And this was done by a Party that carried on for years the farce that it was the Party of small government, of getting the government out of your private life, of strong marriage and family values, and of States’ Rights in the face of Federal over-reach. Brilliant!

I can’t wait to see what Democrats have up their sleeves when they inevitably assume power again. Tyranny without end, just in different form, but with the same purpose.

Reid – I’m just glad to see someone talking about the legal and political ramifications of this bill instead. That point – all too often – gets lost in the “should she live or die” argument.

As much as I don’t want her to die, even less do I want to open this political legal door to Congress.

Sorry folks, you are all missing the point. W and his band of bullies are going through this drama for one and only one reason. They know they cannot follow through with their campaign rhetoric on the abortion issue without starting something approaching a civil war. They are desperate for high profile bones they can throw to the religious extremists they count on to stay in office. If these arrogant political thugs really cared about the issue at hand, they would have drafted generic legislation. I submit that they have absolutely no personal investment in the fate or feelings of Ms Schiavo’s family. They are only interested how much air time this stunt gets them.

Reid asks us not to resort to ad hominem. Anyone who thinks my characterization of some of our esteemed elected officials as arrogant thugs and bullies obviously has not been paying attention to the rhetoric and abuse of power these people have been displaying lately. It is not ad hominem when it is accurate and appropriate for the behavior in question. Why isn’t the media asking what kind of man is Tom DeLay? I am deeply ashamed of my government today.

“I am deeply ashamed of my government today”

You’re not alone, according to this poll

“Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more – 70 percent – call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.”

Not that “We, The People” have much of anything to do with what Congress has done this session. No public support for bankruptcy reform? So what? Only 30% favor SS reform? So what?

I find it fascinating to watch the party of small government, of decentralized government that allowed local communities to determine what was best for them … stick the federal nose into the most intimate of matters, from marriage to death.

Did you read that the Replican National Committee warned House Republicans they stand to lose 25 seats in the midterm elections … and thus, their majority? House Republicans said they thought it was scare talk.

If the spend the rest of this two year term passing bills that have no majority support from the public, losing 25 seats may be optimistic.

I’m to the point I hope they keep it up. Pass every obnoxious partisan bill they can, flag-burning amendment, kill filibusters, the whole “Red Meat” package, anything to avoid passing a actual budget.

Sometimes you have to go all the way down to the gutter before things get any better. I think that’s where this train is headed.

“I’m to the point I hope they keep it up. Pass every obnoxious partisan bill they can, flag-burning amendment, kill filibusters, the whole “Red Meat” package, anything to avoid passing a actual budget.

Sometimes you have to go all the way down to the gutter before things get any better. I think that’s where this train is headed.”

Not that I have any say in the matter or control over their excesses, but I tend to agree. Right after the last election, a highly respected historian or journalist (I forget who said it) was asked if there was any time in history that the Republicans held this much power. He replied, “Yes, during the 1920s, and after that we had the New Deal”.

Jan mentioned the “Replican National Committee”

Space aliens! Space aliens have occupied the bodies of our reasonable small government grand-old-party foils. That is the only explanation.

They’ve even got a slogan!
The Replican National Committee: Making Liberals Have Nostalgic Longings for Goldwater Since 1994.

If this were a moral concern that was meant to resolve a painful issue for all of us, it would not be named “A act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.” It’s not “shortsighted and simplistic to claim that this is just about one person,” it literally is about one person, by the name of the bill.

Really, sir, shall I spell it out for you. The bill itself is about one person. The effort behind the bill is done with a view to much more than one person.

Either way, this case will set a precedent. What you are saying is, that if I’m incapacitated, you need nothing more than the word of one family member that I want to die and they can kill me. The effort behind this bill is to prevent that precedent from being set.

I have nothing against people being taken off life support when that is undeniably their expressed wish. But a lot of us would rather the state not assume that we’d rather be dead than alive.

Regarding states’ rights. In the 60s, the federal government intervened in Mississippi, where civil rights workers were dying, on the grounds that loss of life was equivelant to a loss of liberty. A lot of people back then thought the feds had become a tyranny, and we all know they were on the wrong side of the issue. I’d be interested to hear your opinion on that.

Also it is evident that for you states’ rights equates to the rights of the state judiciary, and not the legislative or executive branches. The legislature acted, “and was shot down.” too bad for them, eh?

Also you did not answer me regarding Roe v. Wade. Should state governments be allowed to have a say in whether abortion is allowed in their states or not?

Also it is evident that for you states’ rights equates to the rights of the state judiciary, and not the legislative or executive branches. The legislature acted, “and was shot down.” too bad for them, eh?

I think that’s known as “Checks & Balances” as the Founding Fathers intended it.

If it were not for judicial review, we’d have no need for legislatures at all. We could just eliminate that middle-man and have mob rule. Even better, we can have a strong executive and dispense with that pesky judiciary and just have Big Papa Chief take care of us and protect us from the Bad People any way he sees fit.

Last I checked, an emergency session of Congress (Feds) to sign a bill created for a specific person and signed by the President (Feds) so a judge (Feds) can review, and possibly overturn, the judgements of countless state judges constitutes a severe disregard for States’ Rights (not to mention actual tyranny against citizens of this country), which has been the main speaking point of the Republican Party for as long as I can remember.

It seems that the Republicans like States’ Rights only when it doesn’t interfere with the elections of Presidents and interfering in private family matters of this country’s citizenry.

“The bill itself is about one person. The effort behind the bill is done with a view to much more than one person.”

The “effort” is just that. I do not oppose any citizens effort to change laws via the usual systemic means, and create a new law that offers guidance/protection for all. But the “bill” Congress passed is a tightly defined law for one person. The Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from passing “Bills of Attainment” aimed at punishing one person, and provides “equal protection” for all, to prevent Congess from providing special protections for one individual, or group of individuals. The intent is clear; all, not one. This bill is contrary to that foundation.

“What you are saying is, that if I’m incapacitated, you need nothing more than the word of one family member that I want to die and they can kill me. The effort behind this bill is to prevent that precedent from being set.”

No, I’m not saying anything that courts in all the states haven’t set as a precedent long ago; that the spouse gets decisive priority. This is nothing new, and is already well established precedent. So, no, I’m not saying your third cousin can decide to pull the plug.

I’m also saying that if the family disagrees with the spouse, they have legal options to fight it. They might take as many as seven years trying, and if they end up before what they consider to be an “activist” judge, they can appeal. They may end up before as many as 19 different judges, yet find the result is the same.

And rather than accept that outcome, in their final grief, they may turn to what they see as their last resort, their elected representatives in Congress. I can’t blame the parents for doing that. I really can’t. I blame Congress for violating their oath of office to uphold and protect the Constitution by going along with it.

“Also it is evident that for you states’ rights equates to the rights of the state judiciary, and not the legislative or executive branches. The legislature acted, ‘and was shot down.’ too bad for them, eh?”

Really, sir, shall I spell it out for you? Legislators and executives pass and sign laws. Often vague, poorly worded, or outright unconstitutional laws. It is the job of the judiciary to interpret these laws, and make sure they have a fair and equal impact on the public. In this case, the Florida legislature tried to intervene, and the Florida Supreme Court struck down their effort as violating the Florida Constitution.

It seems to happen a lot. Legislative bodies try to pass laws that exceed their long established mandate, and judges strike them down on those grounds. All because of these pesky documents they call “Constitutions,” which were crafted to limit the power of government over the people. Legislators get peeved at their short term failures, and try end runs around a system that’s been in place for centuries.

There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

“In the 60s, the federal government intervened in Mississippi, where civil rights workers were dying, on the grounds that loss of life was equivelant to a loss of liberty.”

Federal intervention in Mississippi, and in Alabama, and where ever they stepped in, was to uphold the equal protection clause. There were citizens who were not being allowed to attend schools at which they’d been accepted. There were other citizens being murdered for engaging in free speech. Pretty basic denials of freedoms we all enjoy. Terri Schiavo has not been denied the due process we all get, and when Congress passes a law providing her with more due process than you or I get, that’s a violation of the equal protection clause as well.

And as a relevant sidenote, in the 2000 election the Republicans appealed to federal court to overrule a state court on an issue of equal protection (despite errors state wide, some votes were getting “recounted” more than others). And the Supreme Court ruled that you can’t do that … all must be treated equally.

This is the same legal principle, and in my opinion, the federal courts will eventually be forced to rule in the same manner.

Who will Congress turn to then? Will they declare the federal courts void as well?

“Also you did not answer me regarding Roe v. Wade.”

You are questioning a semanticist, and your original question was “I would also be interested to know whether you exhibited the same amount of concern for state’s rights when Roe v. Wade was handed down.

When it was “handed down,” I was 15. And I was more worried about “getting in” than the repercussions and legal ramifications handed down by the Supreme Court.

But today? If a state, say, Utah, wanted to pass a law banning abortions within their borders, and the citizens backed it (either via referendum or lack of a massive recall of the politicians supporting it), I’d support that 100%. Just as I do Nevada’s right to have regulated “amenities” other states make a felony.

And frankly, I’m not as up on the fine details of the abortion debate. You may well have a point that there’s a contradiction there.

But in this case, there’s not really any gray areas that I see. If this was a bill that granted rights and/or provided guidance for all, you and I could continue this debate and it would have some value.

But that’s not what’s going on here.

I’ve stayed away from writing too much about this issue. Fortunately, while the specifics of the case are lost on me between the talking points of both sides, an opinion about congress is more easily reached. The republicans (the guys I supported in the last election) have managed to really screw this one up. To use this situation in such a blatant pander to the religious right is absolutely absurd. I do not believe that those responsible think that they can or will win. But winning isn’t the point – pandering is. And to feign shock and distress over this “cause celeb” is just wrong. Maybe congress should just stick to baseball.

Joel, what is your agenda in this discussion? Who exactly are you calling the “scumbag” in this case? Your comments suggest that either you are not aware of the extensive medical or legal facts of the case, or that these facts are an impediment to your agenda. Can you make a factual point about this case without the obfuscation and scare tactics?

There is no credible medical evidence to support the parent’s desperate claims of their daughter being aware and responsive. Terri Schiavo is already dead. A warm body sustained by artificial means and randomly firing neurons does not a life make. The person that was Terri Schiavo is long gone.

You two can discuss whatever you like, but for the record, [1] I think Joel has been quite civil on what is a quite passionate issue for all (he thinks Schiavo’s husband is a “scumbag,” and I would say the same about Tom Delay … this is the nature of passionate issues … better that we call them names than each other), and [2], I’m no doctor (I was only pre-med), nor am I willing to review and rehash seven years of medical testimony.

I liked what Rep. Barney Frank said, “We’re not doctors, we just play them on C-SPAN.” The intrusion of Congress into this is not a medical issue. For me, that’s a Constitutional issue.

Really, sir, shall I spell it out for you? Legislators and executives pass and sign laws. Often vague, poorly worded, or outright unconstitutional laws. It is the job of the judiciary to interpret these laws, and make sure they have a fair and equal impact on the public. In this case, the Florida legislature tried to intervene, and the Florida Supreme Court struck down their effort as violating the Florida Constitution.

The act known as “Terri’s Law” was by no means vague, poorly worded, or unconstitutional by either state or federal standards. If you have time, I suggest you read this (PDF) which deals specifically with this issue within the scope of the state of Florida.

Terri Schiavo has not been denied the due process we all get, and when Congress passes a law providing her with more due process than you or I get, that’s a violation of the equal protection clause as well.

Your position on states’ rights is clearly more consistent than most, and no I’m not in for an abortion debate either. The use of the term “Due process” is interesting because it either implies that Terri is on trial for something (which she isn’t), or that Congress is taking undue measures in preventing her husband from killing her. I guess we are at an impasse, because again, you assume she wants to die by dehydration (based on what, again?) and I believe we don’t know so take the safe path and not the irreparably destructive one. It can just as easily be argued that she is being denied “due process” or “equal protection” since she cannot speak unequivocally for herself. So the case for federal intervention is a lot stronger than you give it credit for.

The case bears a lot of similarity in some ways to pardons or stays of execution, which are a clear precedent for the legislative’s and executive’s jurisidiction. The main difference being that the person involved is not under suspicion of having committed a crime. How ironic.

I do rejoice to see so many people coming on board with the states’ rights issue. I hope you stick around. There is a lot of work to be done there.

Who said this?

“I agree, this is an issue that tends to arouse violent emotions. My reaction is the same when I hear that people are fighting to starve and dehydrate a woman to death on the strength of nothing more than an assumption by a fellow who has a monetary interest in her decease. I am glad someone has the courage to call this fellow on the carpet for the scumbag he is.”

That is not civil. That is operation rescue speak. Tom DeLay’s grandstanding was not civil. What has followed has been strawmen, red herrings and scare tactics.

I do rejoice to see so many people coming on board with the states’ rights issue. I hope you stick around. There is a lot of work to be done there.

I’m not an attorney, but I play one . . . Oh wait. Am too.

This isn’t a “states rights issue.” Its a separation of powers issue. The legislature and executive of both the state and the Federal Governments are creeping into the areas reserved by both the Florida and U.S. Constitutions for the Judidicary.

The legal decisions in the Schiavo case are, since the legal principles are relatively well settled, very clear explanations of the law of separation of powers on both the state and federal levels. (The concept is similar enough in both the FL and US Constitutions for both discussions to be informative.) Definitely recommended reading

1- The Federal decision from yesterday explains the history of the case rather ably, and unfortunately, but wisely, dodges the (easy) constitutional question over whether the “Schiavo Act” itself is constitutional (it very isn’t): Look here http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32205fjord.pdf

2- The Fla Supreme Court decision from September 2004 that ruled the Florida State version of the Schiavo Act unconstitutional was almost elementarily lucid on the point. Its a terrific primer on separation of powers.-
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/flsct92304opn.pdf

3- And it’s not like the Federal Courts haven’t had the chance to review this whole matter already –
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/031705pzr.pdf

To recap –
Is Not- a States Rights Issue.
Is- a Separation of Powers Issue.

The conservatives are beating the bushes in a desperate search for an activist judge.

The irony is so great, I am almost speechless.

Sadly, this lesson will be lost on Bush in his quest to appoint more ultra conservatives to the bench.

conservative activist judges aren’t that hard to find. There are at least three already on the Supreme Court*, and more working their way up.

It takes four Justices to accept a case, but I can’t even see Scalia and Rhenquist wanting to take cert.in the Schiavo situation. Notice that any decision on the merits, regardless of outcome, could only undermine the power of the courts by giving credence to that thing Congress passed last week.

Justice Thomas, on the other hand is perhaps the most activist judge ever to sit on the Court. This is because, as he has specifically stated, he doesn’t believe that legal precedents are controlling. (a concept referred to as stare decisis and important only because our entire system of law revolves around it). Without stare decisis, a court decision couldn’t undermine the constitution anymore than shore it up, so why not consider the merits?

Of course, without the Supreme Court issuing precedentially binding opinions, the Constitution’s limits on government are, as a practical matter, worthless. So few are inclined to agree with the good Justice on that point.

Well, it appears that for the 5th (or 6th) time, the Supremes refused to review Schiavo’s case. At least they’ve been consistent in that refusal, which in effect says “this is a state matter, handled competently, and therefore beyond our purview.”

Congress could learn something from that. But it would appear Congress doesn’t like any of the judiciary, state or federal (just as, in the past, Republican Presidents would love to have been able to do away with a Democratic Congress). They’ve spoken of how one activist judge can change the world, despite the fact this case has now been reviewed by 19 state judges and 22 federal judges.

More than two hundred years after the fact, I am still awed by the prescience of our Founding Fathers (“like, wow, were those Old Dudes wicked smart, or what?”), and the manner of checks and balances they created. Because I think we can now see the manner in which this Congress would change things, if they had their unfettered way. We also see that public will, even when it reaches 82%, means little or nothing to this Congress.

Well, they better do their worst while they can. Because it’s not hard to see the House going Democratic in 2006. Even the Republican National Committee thinks so.

And they issued that opinion before this particular Congressional Fiasco.

I agree 100% with Reid’s post. I’m writing, though, to take note of another Republican tactic that may help them weasel out of, or at least mitigate, the damage they’re doing to themselves with the Schiavo issue.

That’s redistricting in Georgia. They’re about to redraw lines that will cause Democrats to lose seats and Republicans to gain them. Why? Because they can.

I’m arguing elsewhere against Democrats following suit and doing the same thing in Illinois and California. But at some point, self-preservation will be important to those of us (like me) who see the Democrats as the major institution able to oppose extremist Republicans. I abhor the tactic, and think the Georgia redistricting should be opposed on principle. I hope you’ll consider doing so, Reid.

(@paul: I think you might wait for Democrats to actually display “tyrannical plans” before getting after them for it; we didn’t do the Texas or Georgia redistricting, we didn’t do the Schiavo bill.)

“I abhor the tactic, and think the Georgia redistricting should be opposed on principle. I hope you’ll consider doing so, Reid.”

And do you think the Republican controlled Georgia Legislature would give any more of a hoot about my opposition than the Republican controlled Congress does? Besides, my legislators are Dems. I have no leverage.

And, as I’ve revealed to you in e-mail (and thank you for not outing me here … I’ll do it myself), I’m on the horns of a selfish dilemma. As far as I can tell, the proposed redistricting would move me into District 5, where I could comfortably vote for a man I admire, John Lewis.

Keep things as they are, and I get Cynthia McKinney. Last time, I voted against her in the Democratic primary, and then in the general election, I voted for the Republican, on principle.

I can’t do that anymore, give the actions of the Republican Congress since it convened in January. And in 2006, that will be a knife in my freakin’ heart. So excuse me for not getting on my high horse about this one. I have to recuse myself, based on prior bias.

paul: I think you might wait for Democrats to actually display “tyrannical plans” before getting after them for it; we didn’t do the Texas or Georgia redistricting, we didn’t do the Schiavo bill.

The problem is that a precedent has now been set, and politicians in the future will be willing to use it more frequently, no matter the Party. The tendency is always towards more control, not less. The only difference, and the only disagreements, between Democrats and Republicans are the reasons and specific means to establish a tyrannical government.

So far, these so-called “activist judges” seem to be the only defense we the people have against legislatures and executives who are doing their damndest to undo over 200 years of progress.

To simply say that the ‘culture of life,’ or whatever you call it means that we don’t have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint.

This was said by Bob Barr, R-Georgia. It’s heartening that at least a few people up there seem to still have a synapse or two firing.

Restating:
Reid: “The principle that voters choose representatives, not the other way around, is not as important to me as my comfort level with my current representative. Despite denouncing it not very long ago, I have no real problem with ‘self-centered, petty partisanship’ even when it pollutes the politics of my own state.”

Maybe this partisanship just isn’t petty enough; bare-knuckled, self-centered, destructive partisanship gets a pass?

Paul: “It’s as important to me to accuse Democrats of potential future abuses as it is to recognize ones by Republicans happening right now.”

That’s kind of even-handed, I suppose.

Reid: Normally, I’d try to avoid digressing from the topic at hand, but you said you wanted the Republicans to lose seats if they keep up Schiavo-style antics in Congress. But when I point out that they’re trying to cheat their way out of paying a price, you say ‘ho-hum, works for me.’ It’s hard for me to figure out.

You know, no one likes to have someone take their words and “restate” them, i.e., twist them, in response to an honest answer.

I’m sorry it is clearly not the answer you want, but that’s what I gave you; honesty. And note, I also said “I can’t do that anymore” with regards to voting for a Republican for Congress. I’m sorry that’s not enough. I could have said, sure, Thomas, I agree with you. But I said “I’m on the horns of a selfish dilemma” and speak of “a knife in my freakin’ heart” ... and you translate that to “I have no real problem with ‘self-centered, petty partisanship’ even when it pollutes the politics of my own state” and “ho-hum, works for me”?

Must I point out who controlled the Georgia Legislature last time we got redistricted? Must I point out that at that time I was in John Lewis’ district … until Democrats moved me out of it? Must I point out I had no more control over it then than I do now, so my “weight” either way is less than a flea’s?

I agree with your general premise that redictricting as retaliation is Evil. Who will stop first? You’ve already said you’re against Democrats doing it in other states. Do you think it will stop them?

We can talk about Terri Sciavo or redistricting in states by Republicans or Democrats, but the bottom line problem is the same … politicians of all stripes (like the 100+ Dems who voted for this Schiavo bill) exceeding their purview despite the express distaste of those they allegedly represent.

They’re not listening to us, Thomas, not even when 82% opposed this. So don’t be so upset I’m not writing to my Democratic Legislators to tell them to vote against something they’re already voting against. It’s become clear to me that politicians can only hear us when we speak from one place: the voting booth.

How low can DeLay go?

“Last Friday, as the House and Senate were working out their differences over legislation to stop the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, embattled House Majority Leader Tom DeLay discussed the issue at a gathering of the Family Research Council at the Willard Hotel in Washington. In the speech, he drew parallels between Schiavo’s situation and his own as he faces a barrage of ethics allegations, and he implicitly asked the conservatives to come to his defense as they have Schiavo’s.”

Can his attempts to divert attention from his personal problems and pander to his extremist base sink any lower?

I think it is pretty clear what kind of man Micheal Schiavo is, Mr DeLay. Better than you by far.

If y’all want to get in a fight about politicians messing with the voters to get their side a few more seats, please start reading about what the Democrats are doing in my county.

We’ve had ‘at-large’ voting for our countywide seats since there was a Fayette county, and a grand majority of folks are very happy with it. Along comes a newly-elected Democrat (Virgil Fludd) whose district happens to include PART of my county, and he decides that our method of voting isn’t any good (mainly because no Democrats have been elected here in a coon’s age). So, he holds some town meetings about changing us to district voting, and without anyone having to even count hands, it’s clear that the answer he’s getting is: “GO HOME VIRGIL”. Undaunted, he raised the race flag. When that didn’t work, he pushed in a bill at the state level to force our county to change it’s voting method.

You know the main reason we didn’t elect any Democrats? Simple- there wasn’t a one on the ballot, below state-level offices. I’m in a county that’s about 86% Republican, the Democrats can’t even get a candidate to the ballot. Messing with our voting methods isn’t going to change this.

It’s all politics, and there are no saints involved.

Here’s how i decide who’s doing the right thing in any redistricting debate: count up the number of representatives of each party in the relevant decision making body. Whoever has less representation in the body is invariably proposing a fairer plan. Whoever has more is invariably being a pack of overreaching, selfish jerks.

Experimental data over the last decade in Georgia has borne this out.

Sadly, this doesn’t get us any closer to a solution.