musicman said:
I wouldn't say that the legislation necessarily targeted just one party. Quite a few Democrats voted to intervene as well - some fifty, if memory serves.
As for the aspect of federalism, I'm having a hard time reconciling what I perceive to be contradictions in your viewpoint. The federal courts' consistent interpretation of the XIVth Amendment regarding matters like religion is - to put it mildly - debatable. Yet you seem to have no problem with federal judges forcing communities to take down Ten Commandments displays.
Yet, in a matter like the Schiavo case, where a clearly possible violation of the Bill of Rights exists, you seem to cling to the sanctity of one state judge as the finder of fact, and all other input be damned. Help me out here.
When I said party, I just meant that it targeted one individual - Terri Schiavo - not that it was a purely Republican measure. In this sense it differs from the vast majority of laws, which are general in nature (couple of exceptions - citizenship awarded to individuals and such).
The XIV amendment says that the 1st amendment and the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Where possible state laws or practices conflict with the Bill of Rights, citizens can bring civil rights (based upon general federal laws) claims in federal courts as a way of pursuing their federal rights (leaving the substance of any litigation out of this discussion for now). There may be no corresponding state law that prevents that state from putting up the ten commandments, but arguably, the First Amendment would. It is perhaps itself the only protection (although not necessarily)
The difference I think in this case is that there is clearly a state law and procedure to deal with this issue. In fact, it is the kind of issue that is generally considered a purely state matter (there are no federal probate laws because the constitution doesn't provide a basis for the federal government to make laws on this issue). Every state has procedures to deal with these issues that include decisions of the first instance and appeals of that decision. The states define the procedure and provide protections for litigants within it. It seems dubious for me that a federal court should have oversight over these state adopted procedures and the decision that these state courts make in what is and has always been a state matter. That seems like a possible violation of the doctrine of federalism. In short, it seems questionable for federal courts to provide oversight of purely state issues and procedures over which the federal government has no authority.
On the other hand, I recognize that the federal government generally has the right to protect the due process rights of its citizens. Further, I can think of instances where I would not be overly comforted by state laws and procedures, even in traditionally state areas - i.e., application of the laws to blacks in the south in the 1960's and before.
In the end, I just don't know whether it was constitutional. Even as I review my own response I am not satisfied that I have adequately articulated a meaningful distinction, although I believe there is one. There is still something in the back of my head that is telling me that I am overlooking something important about this issue, but I can't figure out what it might be. In advance, I acknowledge the inadequacy of my response, but ask you to consider that a more educated person may be able to articulate what I could not.
However, constitutionality aside, I think in this case there has been so much procedure and care put into the judicial decisions that I think it was unwise for Congress to intrude, even if they had the authority to do so.