Last week, a feeding tube was re-inserted into the mouth of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who has been in a vegetative state for 13 years. It had previously been removed on a court order, but was re-inserted after a special bill passed by the Florida Legislature.
Separate from right-to-die issues involved, the case highlights a disturbing trend of late: overriding judicial decisions, and often the Constitution itself, with the power of majority opinion.
Several courts ruled Schiavo's husband, Michael, had the right to let his wife die. He argued she could never regain consciousness, and doctors and the courts agreed.
When the feeding tube keeping Terri alive was removed, however, her parents (who oppose letting her die) flooded airwaves with videotapes and pictures of their daughter, and her slow death quickly became a gaudy spectacle.
Public opinion quickly turned against the court's decision to let Schiavo die, and the Florida Legislature capitalized on the burst of public sentiment. The House and Senate passed a special bill allowing Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene and re-insert the tube, which he quickly did.
What is disturbing about the action of Bush and the legislature is they allowed sheer public sentiment to overrule several carefully reasoned judicial opinions. Judges have ruled, with strong support of the medical community, that Schiavo will not regain consciousness and should be allowed to die - and furthermore, that the government has no right to intervene.
The attitude that a majority of Americans cannot be wrong is troubling and not limited to Schiavo's case - it is an attitude that pervades many recent political debates in America.
A hot issue late in the summer revolved around the placement of a marble monument of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse - some defended the move as not specifically promoting religion, but every court that heard the case disagreed.
Once the courts had ruled resoundingly in favor of removing the monument, the rallying cry was that the courts were subjugating the "will of the people."
"Seventy seven percent of Americans don't object to the Ten Commandments being posted in a courtroom," Bill O'Reilly exclaimed on his show, in between rants about "secularists" taking over the nation.
"Almost as many approve of the pledge of allegiance as it stands. Yet all of that will not matter if the Supreme Court becomes progressive," O'Reilly lamented.
Perhaps I missed the day in government class where we learned the Supreme Court is charged with defending and protecting the Constitution, unless polls show people favor one particular standpoint. I mush have forgotten about the phase of Supreme Court deliberations where they bring in the USA Today and rule in whichever direction the polls dictate.
A similar attitude was again found in the do-not-call list controversy - after a federal judge ruled the list unconstitutional, Congress and President George W. Bush pushed through a special law directly overturning the judicial decision.
The reason?
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," according to U.S. Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-Louisiana.
Well, the simple answer is: yes they can. (See: success of American Idol, 'N Sync, Clear Pepsi, Scary Movie 3, etc.)
Sheer public opinion must not prevail over the opinions of our highest courts, which are charged with protecting our laws and our Constitution.
The majority of the American public gets to shape policy directly when they go to the voting booths - and interestingly enough, if O'Reilly and his followers really want to complain about judges overruling the will of the people when it really does matter, I can think of one Supreme Court case in Florida around December of 2000 they should take a look at.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
