To: Ilaine who wrote (104692 ) 3/18/2005 7:24:59 AM From: Lane3 Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 793800 Perhaps you've already seen this editorial. We were talking about hypocrisy a while back. This is an example of what I had in mind. washingtonpost.com > Opinion > Editorials Editorial The Schiavo Case Friday, March 18, 2005; Page A22 On Wednesday night the House of Representatives passed a bill to let "an incapacitated person" -- or someone who cares about him or her -- go to federal court whenever a state court "authorizes or directs the withholding or withdrawal of food" and when there is no undisputed living will. The Senate passed a narrower bill yesterday that would deal with Ms. Schiavo's case alone -- allowing her parents, who wish to keep her alive, a shot at the federal courts. Both bills make a mockery of the professed conservative devotion to the sovereignty of states and the integrity of their courts. There is no great constitutional question to litigate here. Nonetheless, the broader House bill would create endless opportunities to involve the federal courts in heart-rending end-of-life struggles within families. And the Senate bill is nothing more than a warrantless intervention by the national legislature in a specific case that -- no matter how much members might dislike the result -- is no business of Congress. Yet Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) declared in a statement yesterday that he supports federal court review because, whatever the courts may have said, "when I see the videotapes of Terry Schiavo, it is clear she is conscious and has feelings." The message to state courts is that they can do as they will with accused criminals and rely on federal law to shield them from review, but Congress will pull out the stops to overturn rulings -- however local -- that members don't like. That's not how the federal system is supposed to work. ------------------ Also, I remember your interest in the subject about the administration pre-packaging news. Didn't want you to miss this long Times article if you're still interested. nytimes.com