Friday, March 25, 2005
Instapundit links to a couple of posts that make the case that the federal courts (trial and appellate) properly followed the text of the Schiavo intervention law, and Congress is at fault for passing "a procedural statute, in the hopes of getting a substantive result".
This makes me wonder just how screwed up Congress really is (insert favorite joke here). With all the hundreds of attorneys working on Capitol Hill (officeholders as well as staff), how is it possible that they failed to produce a cleanly written bill that would have accomplished the desired end result? This was a really big deal to the GOP leadership - how could they have produced a bill with even the smallest bit of wiggle room?
Or is it possible that Congress purposely produced a 'defective' bill? I know this is swooping into conspiracy land, but, if this is what happened, it would have been a way for a number of those voting 'aye' to show their concern without actually committing to a bill that would change the status quo one bit.
Granted, I'm not in favor of Congress getting involved, but incompetence or chicanery is never something to appreciate, even if it does end up producing a desired end result.
UPDATE: Mark Kleiman has more, and earlier...