Let me state right off the bat that I tend to think the best of people. I believe that people in general support what they believe to be "right," without a cynical veil or filter to support a particular end, and disregarding the means to achieve the desired result. My attitude applies generally to politicians, judges and the population at large.
On the other hand, I also believe that people tend to be lazy (and I'm one of the best examples of this). Most folks tend to take whatever they hear at face value after passing it through the filter of their own beliefs and biases. In contrast to the above paragraph, I believe this tends to be applicable to the public at large as well as politicians, but less so to judges.
The common theme between these two positions is a lack of maliciousness. Relatively few people base their beliefs and actions maliciously. If there's blame to be assigned for taking the "wrong" position on a topic, it's much more likely that they're too lazy to look into the matter than because they want to cause someone harm. Selfishness often comes into play as well, but I still put it into the "non-malicious" category.
The catalyst for these thoughts is the current controversy over the fate of Terri Schiavo, as well as an article in today's Washington Post. Many, many people, including some of my friends (and "friendly acquaintances") have taken to accusing those who support the decisions of the various courts in this matter of participating in a "culture of death" and other accusations of malicious behavior. The courts, in particular, are vilified by their consistent decisions that 1) Terri Schiavo is in a "persistent vegetative state," and 2) she wouldn't want to continue to exist in that state.
I certainly don't believe that judges are perfect. While I think that they generally do the best they can in their decision-making, they still make mistakes. There are a host of reasons why those mistakes are made, but I believe they seldom stem from malice. And I also disagree with Mark Levin's premise in his latest best-seller, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America. Disclosure: I'm basing these statements on reviews I've read and heard of Levin's book, but also on statements I've heard directly from his mouth. I am ready to be corrected on any point I may attribute to Levin which is inaccurate.
At any rate, while Levin focuses his ire toward the Supreme Court, I've heard him apply his accusations more broadly at the judiciary at large in the United States. While there are rulings where I agree with his point, I think there are many others where he misses the mark, and I don't believe the Schiavo case is the result of judicial activism at all.
But more importantly, these judges don't deserve the vitriol that has been directed their way by the Schindlers (Terri's family) and their supporters. By and large, I believe they are conscientious men and women trying to do what's right under the law. Trying to characterize their rulings as a part of the so-called "culture of death" does nothing to persuade others or resolve the controversy. It merely fans the flames.
Terri's case saddens me as deeply as it can, considering it involves a person I've never met and have no connection to whatsoever. But just because I believe Judge Greer was most likely correct in determining that Terri is in PVS and that she wouldn't want to exist like that doesn't make me evil, or even particularly stupid (you can find much better examples of my stupidity). I'm not unfeeling; in fact, quite the opposite.
I suppose I'm asking my friends and "friendly acquaintances" who disagree with me to stop fanning the flames of controversy, and even hatred. Those of us who support the various courts' decisions have good hearts, in the main. We're not malicious, and we don't want to "kill" Terri. We may be misguided in your estimation, but we're not worthy of your contempt.
