For those of you who've honestly had enough of the picketing, and the angry voices coming out of your television making as much honest-to-god human stench about
Terry Schiavo as they do about the "sanctity" of marriage, take a look at a different, more sober undertaking, as penned by Judge James D. Whittemore of the U.S. District Court of Tampa, Florida.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7264601/This is the (by looking at the unique spelling errors, obviously OCR'd) text of the federal court ruling relating to a temporary restraining order that made the hulabaloo around the Hill over the weekend. Don't forget, President George Bush had to get up at
one in the morning to sign this bill. Because that's a big deal, waking up the President. That only happens in spy movies. And movies with ninjas.
Back to the text, grit your teeth and try to push through it. I know plenty of you won't. Because it's more important to download ringtones, get the latest Paris Hilton T-Mobile porn (e-mail me later) or BitTorrent every episode of CSI than it is to sit down and
read what goes into judicial decisions handed down every day.
I know.
You hate lawyers.
And I know.
It's all gibberish that they invented.
But it's amazing, complex, very human, and ultimately, a good look at the judiciary's method of what ultimately equates to betting on the winning horse.
To illustrate, the text states that a preliminary injunction is to be granted if it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
It speaks to me that the judiciary is highly focused on what is likely - not what happens in movies, not what magic can occur if you believe in fairies, or faeries, or fayryies or however you spell it, and not what fate seems concerned to conjur up specifically for one individual. The law doesn't work like that, and it's well it doesn't. Rough, perhaps, but reasonable.
I asked my counselor, who is rapidly turning into my mentor these days, to help me out with a question I had. I said, "I need to understand who, if anyone, is doing the thinking about reasonable efforts to keep our efforts as humans focused and in accordance with our best social interests."
No, seriously. I asked that question. Did you ever get a clear story on that when you were a kid? Did anyone tell you,
don't worry, there are social worker committees at work on making sure humankind is progressing in a way that benefits us all?
Well, that's what she said. Strong lobbying groups that work the human sustainability angle. It seems, looking at the judicial write-up, that as trite as it may sound, there are friends in the judicial sector that are willing to look beyond standard from-the-hip emotional gunnery and do what has been prescribed by the spirit and letter of law.
For those that appreciate the more J.S. Mill microcosm gig and don't dig the whole being-thought-for thing, well, go try and stop them. But for me, it represented something of a larger societal safety net. You can't imagine what a relief it is to know others are working on saving people as a species from themselves until you worry about taking it on yourself.
I don't think I meant to twist this in any way politically, and it's not to say that my opinion on Terry Schiavo leans to the life or the death side, or even that it
matters what side I lean to - it's more of a reflection on where I'm starting to try to go with my thinking. I believe we can do better than we've all been doing, and the judicial framework, as ugly, entwined, and confusing as it is, really is a good start to looking past shallow emotional responses into the realm of critical thinking.