Separation of Powers

Terri Schiavo has died. Of one thing we can probably be sure: this isn't how she wanted to die. Not in the midst of a media circus. Not with people demonizing her husband. Not with every second-rate has-been loud mouth showing up to try and get a moment before the camera (from Randall Terry to Jesse Jackson.)

Unable to find a way to blame their usual suspects, feminists and gays, for not being able to save Terri Schiavo, the Right has turned to another old adversary, the judiciary. During the days of the Warren Court, the Right castigated "activist" judges for making law from the bench. But the situation is a little different now. Now, evidently, the Right wants judges to ignore the law and make up new laws when the law doesn't come up with the "Right" answer.

Today, on CNN, James Dobson said the following:

But the aspect of it that concerns us the most is that all the great moral decisions in this country, whether it's the sanctity of life or the definition of marriage, or what we can do with the Ten Commandments, all of them are made by the courts. Our founding fathers intended that this would be a government of the people, by the people, for the people. But now the final arbiter of every significant moral issue comes down to unelected, unaccountable judges to the judiciary.

You know, I can't find anything in the Constitution about "significant moral issues." I don't see any article or section that instructs the judicial branch to treat "significant moral issues" differently than any other issue before the court. Do we really want judges that follow poll results rather than the law? Dobson himself seems to have trouble understanding poll results, since all the polls I've seen indicate that the "people" think the Florida courts handled this case appropriately, and Congress should have stayed out of it. Even if the poll results were in his favor, government of the people, by the people, and for the people doesn't mean mob rule.

It sure looks like the Right wants to make it up as they go along, and that doesn't work for me. Who knows what they'll decide next? Does the "culture of life" mean that we have to keep everybody 'alive', for some value of alive? Had Mrs. Schiavo's parents not disagreed with her husband, she would have died in 1998, and the only newspaper mention of her passing would be an obituary. If it's "murder" to "starve" her to death when there's a disagreement, why isn't it "murder" to "starve" her to death when everybody agrees? We would have no more evidence of what Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted in either case. Why wasn't it "murder" when the hospital in Texas ended life support for Sun Hudson, despite his mother's wishes that he be kept alive? If it's "murder" for Terri Schiavo, then why isn't my advance health care directive "suicide"?

The law exists, and the judicial branch exists, to make those tough decisions, to draw the lines. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but all the people, not just the people who agree with James Dobson, or even with the majority.

Quality of Life in Suburbia

I live in a growing suburb. Growth always creates tensions; people want to preserve their quality of life. But quality of life means different things to different people.

My neighborhood is a very nice neighborhood, with good schools and well-maintained houses. It's a desirable area to live in, and as a result, more houses are being built in the area. But unlike other suburban neighborhoods I've lived in before, this neighborhood lacks any retail. To pick up a gallon of milk, buy a latte, grab a pizza, or even mail a letter, I have to get in my car and drive at least two and a half miles.

As do all the other people who live on this hill, and all the people moving here. Yet there is resistance to the idea of putting any retail on this hill, out of fear it will degrade our quality of life. The fear is it will bring more traffic to our neighborhood.

I don't think retail will bring more traffic. I think all the houses being built will bring more traffic, because all of those people will also have to buy groceries, mail letters, rent videos, buy a latte. I think allowing some retail on our hill will decrease traffic. Being able to walk or bike to a grocery store to pick up a loaf of bread means fewer car trips. Limited retail isn't going to bring people from off the hill up here.

I'm not talking about Costco or Home Depot, but well-chosen retail can enhance the quality of life in suburban neighborhoods, by giving the neighborhood gathering places. Getting people out of their cars gives people a chance to interact.

Prior to moving here, I lived in a suburban neighborhood that incorporated retail. The businesses were at the perimeter of the neighborhood, but easy walking or biking distance. There were 6 grocery stores within a mile and a half of my house. Frankly, the traffic here is a bigger pain than the traffic in my old neighborhood, because there's no avoiding it here.

The houses are already going up. If you want to stop growth, you have to start earlier in the process. Not building infrastructure to support the houses that have already been allowed enhances nobody's quality of life.