I didn’t plan on staying up this late, but the Congressional testimony and the vote on the bill that might save Terri Schiavo’s life was compelling watching. And the Republicans got the votes they needed, so it’s possible the feeding tube will be re-inserted before morning. Some thoughts:

• I’m really very relieved that the Democrats’ vote was not nearly as solidly negative as their testimony was leading me to believe. I would like to think that more of them would feel truly conflicted about voting against a bill that could be the last chance to save someone’s life.
• It is true that an inordinate amount of attention has been paid to one person’s life. But however it happened, that’s the way it is now. The entire country (and some of the world?) is involved, and we can’t turn human decency and compassion inside out and watch her die for the greater good of the sovereign will of the Florida judiciary. I agree with one Republican who said that if we do that, our souls will be scarred.
• A commentator on Fox was talking about it being almost funny to see the Republicans arguing against the rule of law. (I think the commentator was Susan Estrich. If it was, my condolences to her family. She’s truly awful. She talks like a very bad Carol Channing impersonator.) That’s true. Usually, the Democrats are the ones who want to change the rules so that they can win. If I could think of even one time when they did it for a cause this good, I wouldn’t have as little respect for them as I do.
• And yes, the Congress is interfering in the judicial branch. But since judges have decided that they’re legislators, why shouldn’t legislators decide they are activists? Or maybe just decide that they’re vetebrates? I’m very glad that someone finally got it through the heads of the House Republicans that they are a majority and they can actually take a stand sometimes without begging the Democrats’ permission first.
• Much was said about this pointing to the need for everyone to have a Living Will. Maybe I don’t know enough about those things, but would that really have made a difference? If I had signed a Living Will, I believe I would’ve stipulated that I didn’t want my life preserved if all hope was gone. Having to be fed doesn’t fit my personal definition of hopelessness. Don’t know about that, though.
• I can’t say I don’t see any case to be made about governmental interference, or any of the other confusing aspects to this case. But I can’t help but come back to the simplest elements of the case. Her husband wants her to die, and his aggressive pursuit of her death has been inhuman. The state courts sided with him, and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. So according to the rules, it should’ve ended there. But the courts’ decision is so spectacularly bad that the government is getting involved. That changes the balance of power, though it also may begin to make for better legal decisions with less politicizing at the cost of the American ethos. And it may suggest to certain judges that their power to push a liberal agenda on the country may not be as unstoppable as they thought.

Maybe it’s just because it’s late and I want to go to bed, but I feel like I can live with that.

***

Follow-up: Just went off to Drudge Report one last time and found out that Bush has already signed the bill. Not that that’s a surprise, but reading this quote was:

“Today, congressional leaders are trying to appoint Congress as a judge and jury,” said Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla. “If we do not draw the line in the sand today, there is no limit to what democratic principles this Congress will ignore or what liberties they may trample on next.”

I’m just glad I lived long enough to hear a Democrat act as if he gave a rip about democratic principles or liberties. Will wonders never cease?