The Supreme Court and the Schiavo Bill

Now that Congress has passed, and the President has signed, a bill to give the federal courts authority to review Terri Schiavo's case, I am beginning to speculate about how all of this may play out when the legislation inevitably comes before the Supreme Court for review.

First, some history.

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that state anti-sodomy laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution's "right to privacy". Less than 20 years later, citing a change in prevailing "world" opinion [i.e. the views of European elitists] on the issue of homosexuality, the Supreme Court overruled its Bowers decision by finding a constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Stanford v. Kentucky that capital punishment for those who have committed murder prior to reaching the age of majority was not a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Less than 20 years later, citing a change in prevailing "world" opinion [i.e. the views of European elitists] on the issue of capital punishment, the Supreme Court overruled its Stanford decision by finding a constitutional prohibition against the juvenile death penalty in the case of Roper v. Simmons.

In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health that the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not require the government to accept the "substituted judgment" of close family members who want to withdraw hydration and nutition from a patient in a vegetative state, in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient's with respect to such withdrawal of hydration and nutrition.

Based on recent Supreme Court precedent, let's extrapolate a little.

My guess is that, less than 20 years after the Cruzan decision, the Supreme Court (with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion as he did in Lawrence and Roper), citing a change in prevailing "world" opinion [i.e. the views of European elitists] on the issue of euthanasia, will overrule its Cruzan decision by finding that families have a constitutional right to privacy to engage in end-of-life medical decisions, including euthanasia, free from ANY governmental interference.

In short, I fear that the Supreme Court will use the Schiavo case to do for the cause of constitutionally protected euthanasia what Roe v. Wade did for constitutionally protected abortion.