(Photo:
AP/MyWay.com)
I'm sure everyone by now has heard about Jesse Jackson voicing his support of the Schindler family to keep Terri Schiavo alive. Jackson met with activists outside of the hospice holding Terri, where they welcomed him with open arms:
The former Democratic presidential candidate was invited by Schiavo's parents to meet with activists outside Schiavo's hospice. His arrival was greeted by some applause and cries of "This is about civil rights!"
"I feel so passionate about this injustice being done, how unnecessary it is to deny her a feeding tube, water, not even ice to be used for her parched lips," he said. "This is a moral issue and it transcends politics and family disputes."
I've never been that much of a fan of Jackson, albeit I don't have as much contempt for him as, say, Jesse Peterson and others. Much of the criticism is right: he's a camera hog, an opportunist, and will look out for number one before anything or anyone else.
But even his critics have to admit that his support gave a least a glimmer of hope in saving Schiavo's life and also hurts the "religious right" moniker that the people who support Michael Schiavo has tried to label the activists.
By meeting the activists outside of the hospice, Jackson probably quelled what was becoming a heated situation, as activists were angry at the actions of the government and now sees time running out for Terri. His influence may encourage a few black state senators in Florida to pass legislation that could possibly place the feeding tube back into her as well.
Whether Jackson still has the influence that he had in the past is doubtful, and his presence would have been better served a couple of weeks ago. However, I think the old saying "better late than never" can be applied in this instance.
Fellow blogger
Casey Lartigue echoes many of the same viewpoints I've expressed about this case, including Jackson's impact. One of the hollow arguments that really irks me is this one:
(1) some people, mainly Democrats and liberals, are making the argument that Republicans are hypocrites about this case. Unfortunately, some liberals are sucking out of their strawman that people who talk about states' rights are saying that there is NEVER a case for the state to intervene.
In fact, its one of the dumbest of them all. They're trying to base this from the opponents of the civil rights era, in which most of them ironically were Dixiecrats. I've heard no conservative or libertarian express the view that state courts and legislatures are allowed to trump rights that are written directly into the Constitution, particularly rights that are listed in both the Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights (the right to life).
If, as the Declaration of Independence states, goverment derives their powers from the consent of the governed, why should a possible violation of the right of a U.S. citizen by a state judiciary go unchallenged by the federal courts and Congress; all whom swore to uphold the laws of the Constitution before they received their positions? There really isn't an argument that can be made about a violation of states' rights in the Schiavo case.
Tomorrow morning
the Schindlers return to Atlanta to petition the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for a petition granting a new review of the case due to faulty procedure by District Court Judge Whittmore.
Let's hope they presented a stronger case, as Kevin Aylward at Wizbang believes they're better off arguing that Florida Superior Court Judge George Greer's decision didn't show "
clear and convincing evidence" that Schiavo wanted to die, as the Supreme Court had stated needed to be shown in a previous case.
